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

Does the Christian god exist.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: Select Winner
Started: 10/28/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 503 times Debate No: 64091
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




First round acceptance, second to fourth is the argument/rebuttal stage, and the fifth is the conclusion.

(it has happened before and I am pointing out except more vibrantly.)


Turning this type of debate into a "personal argument" would be pointless. Please begin your argumentation.
Debate Round No. 1


Yeah it has happened before, anyways let us begin,
For my first argument I will recycle a previous argument of mine

For my first argument I would like to use the theorem:

Big Bang -> cause -> ???
Big Bang -> cause -> God -> cause -> ???

It was intended for anti-god but I will use it for pro-god.
"Every Cause has its Effect; every Effect has its Cause; everything happens according to Law; Chance is but a name for Law not recognized; there are many planes of causation, but nothing escapes the Law."
There has to be a cause for something to happen. Since this is so what "caused" god?
My awnser god. God must have created itself. The reason being there was an intent. The universe is matter it doesn't think or do anything. But if there is a mind behind it there is both a reason and cause. Because there is a reason to exist there is a cause.

1. Every being that exists is either contingent or necessary.
2. Not every being can be contingent.
3. Therefore, there exists a necessary being on which the contingent beings depend.
4. A necessary being, on which all contingent things depend, is what we mean by God.
5. Therefore, God exists.

And so god exists.

Argument 1 part 2--

Since there is a god (supported by part 1) I will now use a priori argument.
This is the classic ontological, or a priori, argument. It was first articulated in 1070 by St. Anselm, who argued that because we have a conception of an all-perfect being "" which he defined as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" "" it has to exist. In his essay Proslogion, St. Anselm conceived of God as a being who possesses all conceivable perfection. But if this being "existed" merely as an idea in our minds, then it would be less perfect than if it actually existed. So it wouldn't be as great as a being who actually existed, something that would thus contradict our definition of God "" a being who's supposed to be all-perfect. Thus, God must exist.

Therefore the god that exists must be perfect.

Argument 1 part 3--

So assume there is another god (or gods) instead of the Christian god.
Allah and Elohim -- the gods of Islam and Judaism have pretty much the exact same belief as Christians. It is compared here:

Now lets look at the greeko-roman belief -- they made them in thier own image so pretty much they literally made them up.

The only difference between Judaism, Islam, and Christianity is belief in Jesus, and what happened in the biblical, tanakh, and quran times. God did not create sin Lucifer did in Christianity and Judaism, but what about Islam? Allah created sin. And his creation but cannot enter into the world. Allah is a kind god according to the quran though. I will argue the islam P.O.V. with if he could he would.

Therefore the Christian god is the only perfect/pure god.

Conclusion of parts 1, 2, and 3.

Therefore the Christian god exists and is the only god.


ThinkFirst forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


You are exused, continue.o


The first statement that I MUST make, in reference to the debate topic is that it cannot currently be answered in the affirmative or negative, with ANY degree of certainty, whether or not ANY deity exists - at least not objectively...

My favorite description of a "personal god" comes from Dr. Neal DeGrasse Tyson: "God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance." The fact of the matter is that the specific answer to the specific topic of debate is, quite obviously, "Probably not." The primary reasons for my contention are:

1) Lack of rational connection with reality
2) Absolute height of human arrogance
3) Unrealistic claims - self-contradictory
4) Untrustworthy source
5) Obvious human perspective

Let's make no mistake about this: We are talking about a deity that would not exist, even in people's minds, had the bible never come to be. The level of credible belief in the biblical deity, in its most fundamental form, boils all the way down to the veracity of the bible. A building of steel and concrete cannot be built upon wet sand, and that is exactly the case, here. In short, render the bible unbelievable, and the deity within its pages will disintegrate, for the rational human.

1) Lack of rational connection with reality

The very beginning of the foundation for belief in (specifically) the christian deity is one of fallacy and disconnect with reality. The order of creation, itself, is completely out of sequence with what we currently know to be true. Further, stating that "god can do anything" does not reconcile the fact that the proposed creator of nature's laws would not create such laws, just to turn around and immediately violate them. Consider:

Genesis order of creation is:

***Day 1
"Heavens and Earth"
Light and Dark
***Day 2
"Vault" (sky) separating "waters"
***Day 3
Oceans (seas) and dry land
Vegetation, procreation of vegetation, and fruit
***Day 4
Stars ("...lights in the vault of the sky") - "signs" to mark "sacred times," days/years
Sun and moon - Both are called "lights." -- Interesting to note that sun and "stars" are distinct.
***Day 5
Sea creatures
***Day 6
Land animals
Humans (in his own "likeness.") *** Important *** (Male and female both mentioned)
Establishment of human "rule" over lesser animals (intellectually), dominion over all life
*Every* green plant for food

Day 1 - Any water "in existence" prior to the existence of an atmosphere would have been violently vaporized, and frozen. There would be no water over which to "hover," for the deity.
Day 1 - Light and dark were supposedly created, but the SOURCE of light in this universe (stars) were not created until day 4?
Day 2 - The vault (can be interpreted as an atmosphere) required for the formation of liquid water was created after there was already water on the surface?
Day 3 - Oceans and vegetation were created previous to the moon to control the tides and the stars to provide energy and warmth? No vegetation could *BEGIN* let alone survive without warmth, atmosphere, and energy provided by starlight (sun).
Day 4 - The fact that the bible differentiates between our sun and "stars" indicates lack of understanding of the natural order. Calling the moon a lesser "light" indicates human ignorance of the phenomenon of light reflection. The amount of light reaching earth from distant stars would be virtually negligible, and would be the ONLY thing visible, at night, from the surface of the earth, and then just barely. Essentially, everything "created" before this "day" is negated by the fact that stars HAD to come before water, heavier elements, elements necessary for life, and gravity necessary for planetary formation. Further, the most fundamental compound absolutely critical to ALL life (as we know it) is water. The liquid form of this compound is not even possible without a fully formed planet WITH and atmosphere. Essentially nothing stated on days one through three are even POSSIBLE, until after day four.
Day 5 - The ONLY thing in this fictional tale that can be called "in proper order," in keeping with natural law.
Day 6 - The arrogance begins, in stating that man was created "in god's likeness." Whether in appearance or in demeanor and qualities, given many of the monstrous atrocities mandated by this deity, it is clear that the likeness and creation or in reverse: Man created this deity, in written form, in his own likeness, just as every other deity before it.
Day 6 - Giving "every green plant" for food: Does this include nightshade, hemlock, poison ivy/oak/sumac, various poisonous berries?

This foundation tale is PRECISELY the type of tale one would expect to hear from humans completely lacking in knowledge of natural law, physics, structure and operation of the universe and everything in it, and even the most basic chemistry, biology, and botany. Given the perspective of the time during which it was written and the Hebrew "day," it is clear that the bible was written with the understanding of six literal, earth days. Even if it is interpreted, metaphorically, the evening/morning distinction indicates this tale to have been from the perspective of bronze age humans, and entirely made up.

2) Obvious human perspective

To touch only briefly on several things that could not possibly have been born of anything other than human perception, consider these:

Jonah living in the belly of a whale:
* Would not have had anything to breathe, except (most likely) methane gas -- for three days.
* Would have ankle/knee/waist/chest-deep in a pool of caustic digestive juices -- for three days
* The temperature and humidity would have dehydrated him quickly with no drinkable water -- for three days.

Sun standing still for one full day:
* Means the earth's rotation would have to suddenly STOP. This cannot happen, without catastrophic effects to the planet (and everything on it).
* 24-hours of direct sunlight would scorch one side of the earth (especially in the Middle Eastern deserts, and plummet temperatures on the other.
* Violates every known physical law
* Is extremely inefficient and unnecessary for a deity capable of what the bible claims

While a deity with the power to create all laws could easily violate/suspend them, it is critical to note that NOWHERE else in the entire world is there ever any record of such an occurrence... An even such as eclipses did not go unnoticed, but a full day during which the sun did not "move," went without a single entry from ANY other culture throughout mankind's entire history? Unlikely to the point of being unbelievable.

3) Unrealistic claims - self-contradictory

"Thou shalt not kill," - yet the deity mandates genocide, kidnapping/trafficking, rape, human sacrifice, etc.
Two contradictory "lineage" records, for the single most important character in the book (Luke 3 and Matthew 1). Moreover, if the lineage in Matthew is correct, it directly violates the deity's curse upon Jaconiah, since none of his lineage was ever to have been seated upon the throne...

These are but two examples, out of HUNDREDS that are available, that make belief in such a book very suspect.

4) Untrustworthy source

The very foundation and included writings were selected by what would later become the catholic church. Given the nature and morality of this institution, anything that has been determined by such a group must IMMEDIATELY become suspect. The tyranny, bloodshed, oppression, violence, murder, treachery, and fundamental immorality of the hierarchy of this institution is such that no deity of any respectable morality would ever be associated with it. It would be tantamount to forming an ethics committee chaired by Adolph Hitler, and oversight performed by Joseph Stalin. The very fact that the catholic church was instrumental in the formation of the content of the bible removes nearly all (if not all) of the credibility of this book being "divine," in any way.

6) Moral ambiguity

In a book that is supposed to be the utterance of the foundation of "objective" morality, why are there so many humanly immoral inclusions within its pages, pertaining to "divinely mandated" behavior? If there is such a thing as "objective morality," that would mean that said morality is both outside the determination of humans (intrinsic), and is not subject to change. Most especially, such standard, concrete, immutable veracity should not permit for changes in human interaction. Morality is the codification of how humans treat each other; the "ought" in governance of our "can." Being ambiguous, at its VERY BEST, this book could not possibly be divine, in origin.

The christian deity cannot be even considered, without the bible. The bible cannot be trusted, unless it is consistent with reality, with morality, and with itself. Further, the omissions of important information for the judgment as to its veracity shows that the biblical content cannot be reconciled with the physical universe around us, and does not reconcile with itself, in any real sense. Even reading it in any "metaphorical sense" still requires the suspension of reason, in order to accept the utterly ridiculous as immutable truth. The deity of the bible must be intrinsic to human existence, behavior, and all of the qualities that we have come to accept as beneficial, or "good." It is absolutely mandatory that the deity be founded upon axiomatic truth. If it is not, a serious disconnect occurs between that which a rational human being can accept, and what the bible asks that such an human being accepts. The bible MUST absolutely be incontrovertible, in order for the deity within its pages to be reasonably accepted. It is not incontrovertible. It's god must, therefore, most likely not exist.
Debate Round No. 3


Ok, maybe the bible is false. But my previous arguments are completely intact.
--Reason so... The only known perfect god is the Christian god, all others are flawed in some way. But I point out Christianity was the first faith/religion in existence.


Unfortunately, my opponent's rebuttal falls short. None of the first arguments are "intact." Christianity was not the first or even NEAR the first faith/religion in existence. Further, with respect to research and belief, the first hypothesis is ALMOST NEVER the correct one. There were hundreds, if not thousands of religions/faiths that preceded christianity. It was, however, among the first MONOTHEISTIC faiths to take root and spread. This, however, was more a result of kings/emperors/rulers having dominion over larger populations, and mandating "official" religions, for all of their people. Without these events, there is no reason to believe that christianity would have spread as far as it did.

To rebut my opponents first set of arguments, directly, point by point:

Pro Argument 1 Part 1:
Big Bang -> cause -> ???
Big Bang -> cause -> God -> cause -> ???

The cause of the Big bang is unknown
The Big Bang and the existence of a deity are mutually exclusive, until such time as a deity is demonstrated. To this point, belief in a deity doesn't even have a reason behind it, let alone any substantiation. Until such time as a deity can be even logically demonstrated (let alone proven), the Big Bang is not even a part of this discussion.

Concerning cause/effect statement, while the reflexive property of mathematics is appropriate to this statement, we still are not completely familiar with all the "laws," pertaining to physics/quantum physics.
Concerning the "chance statement, while this statement may sound "deep," it really does little to support anything, at all. What are "planes of causation," and what evidence do we have that they exist, or that they are many? No evidence is provided to support this assertion. In the next statement, what "Law" is inescapable?
Unfortunately, the presumption of a cause is not axiomatic, in all cases. Second, the question assumes the existence of a deity, and there is not link between the two. This leap is far too great to be bridged, or so weakly prefaced. Such a question would HAVE to be preceded by SOME form of evidential introduction. Making one axiomatic statement, and using it as a basis for a completely unrelated question is problematic, given that the only place where the deity is even introduced is the question which has already assumed its existence. This is not proof, or even evidence. It is presumption without foundation.
In order to create, the creating (causal) entity must already exist. Therefore, nothing (ABSOLUTELY nothing) can "create itself." Intent also presupposes existence, and requires the pre-existence of the deity. This argument can be dismissed as unsubstantiated.
If there is NOT a mind behind it, there can STILL be a reason and a cause. It simply would not be a cognizant, self-aware entity. Causation does not necessarily imply personage.
What is the "reason to exist?" Where, when, and how was this ever established? Assuming such axiomatic "truths" without establishing their validity does little (or nothing) to support an intelligent causality. Since no "reason" has ever been declared, let alone demonstrated, such a declaration is nullified, as being without support.

1. Every being that exists is either contingent or necessary.
2. Not every being can be contingent.
3. Therefore, there exists a necessary being on which the contingent beings depend.
4. A necessary being, on which all contingent things depend, is what we mean by God.
5. Therefore, God exists.
1 -- False binary choice. There is nothing axiomatic about this statement, and is therefore not a valid premise on which to begin.
* A parent is a NECESSARY being for a child.
* A grandparent is a NECESSARY being for a parent.
* Water is necessary for a bass, trout, or sunfish. Water, however, is not an entity. By this token, one must first establish that there is a BEING that is necessary, before this statement can ever be made.

2 -- This has not yet been established. WHY can every being NOT be contingent?

3 -- Even if #2 was true, there is no way to establish that there is one being, in common to ALL other beings, that is necessary.
* I am a being contingent upon the existence of my parents, grandparents, etc.
* My opponent is a contingent being, but is NOT contingent upon the existence of my parents, grandparents, etc.
* Premise falsified, even if that premise is targeting the deity as the "necessary" being. There has still been NO establishment of the fact that there is an ENTITY, upon which all entities are contingent.

4 -- Attempting to introduce the axiomatic existence of a deity by including it in a definition AFTER THE FACT, breaks the line of logic. There has STILL been nothing to indicate that there is an entity upon which all other entities are contingent.
5 -- All four preceding statements have already been falsified. The conclusion, by extension, is falsified.

This is not a logical extrapolation, given the falsification of ALL premises.

Pro Argument 1 Part 2:

A Priori is not valid, here, since part 1 failed to establish anything, at all. There was no logical sequence, all premises were falsified, and the conclusion may NOT be used "a priori." Further, the ONLY "a priori" arguments that are valid for use in subsequent arguments are those that are universally accepted as axiomatic. Any "a priori" argument that is challenged is immediately invalidated as "a priori," and Part 1 was both challenged and invalidated.

Despite already having been invalidated as an "a priori" argument, I will address this. St. Anselm's premise of knowledge rested on the premise that belief was a prerequisite to understanding. This is a reversal.
It is a reversal of the laws of cause and effect, and leads to erroneous conclusions. Truth is a prerequisite to belief. To attempt to reverse this allows for ANY belief to become "truth," in the mind of the believer.
Not all beliefs are true, and not all truths are believed. The belief that the world was flat did not yield an "understanding" of how or why the world was flat. It led to the hindrance of exploration.
Anselm's argument boils down to: "If I can conceive of an ultimate good, it must exist." This is a fallacy of enormous proportions, given "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" does not give form, property, or personality to such a "good," the presumption that it is an intelligent and causal agency is not a logical deduction.
This is nothing short of presumptuous pomposity, on the part of one that already believed. St. Anselm was a theologian and, therefore, already a believer. His belief, therefore, was established before ANY consideration of possibility.
Since Anselm's premise of knowledge is wrong/false, any conclusion drawn using it as axiomatically inclusive must also be, at the very least, suspect, if not outrightly dismissed.
Argument invalidated.

No god has been shown to exist, and its perfection was assumed, by definition, before the consideration of arguments ever began. A false premise will, invariably, lead to a false conclusion (at the very least, erroneous or incomplete). Thus, perfection is not established.

Pro Argument 1 Part 3:

Given that this entire debate is about, SPECIFICALLY, the "christian" deity, part 3 is completely unnecessary and irrelevant. No other deity is even being considered, and how one myth compares to another myth, based on comparisons of "mythical content" is completely devoid of value to the discussion at hand.


In point of fact, there is virtually no reason, even inductive, to accept that there is a deity, at all. Without the bible, christianity would have no deity to worship -- at least not a named and codified set, anyway. Having narrowly conceded that "... maybe the bible is false," my opponent has effectively conceded that "...maybe the biblical deity is false." Without the biblical deity, whose ONLY support is the bible, there is no christian religion. Once the foundation of a building has been obliterated, the entire structure is set to collapse. No bible, no christian deity. No christian deity, nothing to worship, and nothing around which to create dogmatic doctrine or method of worship. The bible is definitely full of errors; not just scientific errors, but errors of easily demonstrable fact. There is no conceivable reason to accept the christian deity on ANYTHING other than 1) the bible or 2) acceptance of the word of other humans that tell us that this deity exists. Further, they tell us that BECAUSE he exists, there are certain behaviors, beliefs, and practices that are mandatory, under penalty of eternal torture/punishment. The sheer magnitude of the injustice of eternal punishment in exchange for a few decades of erroneous belief would be sufficient to render this deity unjust. A moral breech of this magnitude from what is supposed to be an all-perfect being renders this deity, by definition, false. This is simply one among many easily falsifiable moral attributes that are ascribed to the biblical deity. There is not sufficient room to list all of the immoral acts that would not be conceivable, today. Following, however, is a short list of atrocities that are MANDATED by the biblical deity which is reason, not to hate this deity, but to dismiss it as altogether nonexistent. No deity of the magnitude, perfection, and benevolence the biblical deity is purported to have would even consider atrocities about which even we, as mere humans, would be shocked and horrified to read in our morning papers, hear on our evening televisions, or discover on our news websites...:

Mass slavery
Tribal genocide
Mass kidnapping of virgins -- human trafficking
National invasion of sovereign nation (look at what happened to Saddam Hussein, for invading Kuwait...)

No, the biblical god does not make any sense. The biblical interpretation of god is not reasonable, logical, or believable. I'm sorry, but the christian deity most likely does not exist.
Debate Round No. 4


The-Holy-Macrel forfeited this round.


I will return the courtesy shown to me, and stand on content of the current information.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by ThinkFirst 1 year ago
@ The-Holy_Macrel :

It was very gracious of you to overlook the impact of my schedule. You were under no obligation, and would have been completely within reason to continue with the advantage. I appreciate your graciousness. Thank you.
Posted by ThinkFirst 1 year ago
@Shrek_sDrecKid :

While I appreciate the vote of confidence, please bear in mind that this is subject to VOTE. Given that fact, there is no guarantee that even the most rational or irrefutable truth would turn out to be the most popular (vote). This does not guarantee that those who DO vote will do so withing the parameters of consideration, or that the two sides will be considered by voters completely devoid of personal bias. Irrespective of rationality, veracity, or logical consistency, the outcome will still be subject to "popularity," based on who is voting and how objectively they weigh the arguments against one another.
Again, I thank you for your confidence, but be aware that there is every possibility I will lose, contingent on who votes, and HOW they vote.
While I believe my arguments to be logically sound and consistent, there is zero guarantee that the voters that decide the out come will agree with me. This is, generally, why I normally avoid debate. The only reason I even engaged in this debate is because its challenge was delivered with the introductory caveat of "...pick on someone your own size..."
Posted by Shrek_sDrecKid 1 year ago
Con is going to win for sure...
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
The consequences to accepting the claim that knowledge can be a priori is that it leads to faith. When it is suppose that some knowledge exists and is valid without our need of deriving it from reality, it opens the door to pretending all knowledge can be like this. By denying the use of reason to form these abstract ideas, it claims there are alternative methods of gaining knowledge. By severing the tie to reality, it allows any idea to be accepted.
God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete--it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator God is impossible.
Posted by ThinkFirst 1 year ago
My apologies for not having posted to this round. I got very busy at work, and was unable to dedicate the time to the opening argument. I will consolidate both opening arguments and first rebuttal into the next round, as best I can, considering character limitation.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by judeifeanyi 1 year ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark