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

Does the biblical 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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/8/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 694 times Debate No: 90884
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




I don't believe that the God from the bible exists.


1. Pro is free to start his argument in round 1, because I'm cocky.
2. No kritiks, semantics, trolling, etc.
3. Make sure you're willing, and able, to do this debate before clicking "Accept". If you forfeit one round, that is a concession towards the opposing side.
4. BoP will be shared. Con must show God form the bible doesn't exist, and Pro must show this.


Biblical God: The bible states that god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

Omnipotent: Having the ability to do anything, except lifting the unliftable stone (which won't count).

Omniscient: Having infinite knowledge of everything.

Omnibenevolent: This means God loves and cares for us deeply.

Exists: having objective being in our world, outside of the bible, containing all 3 qualities mentioned earlier.

If accepting this debate, I prefer my opponent to not just be like "You must have faith!", as this is a logical fallacy. I want my opponent to be reasonable.


Let me first start off by saying that I agree with the commenter in that you have a shaky set up for this debate, and you seem to admit as much, so please have some flexibility with me as well.

I believe you have a very skewed and ill-informed view on Christian Theology and the Christian God, or "biblical God", as you call it. Let's take a look at your definitions for example: "Biblical God"....where is the Bible does it say that God is "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent"? The Bible does not have those attributes listed as such, unless I am mistaken and you can show me the exact verse that does. There are certainly a number of verses that convey His omnipotence, but your definition shows your lack of proper citation skills and indicates to me that you are poorly read.

I would even venture to guess that your concept of the Christian God is something that we would both agree upon as not existing.

But let's take a quote from the Big Man himself, shall we?

Exodus 3:14: "God said to Moses, "I am who I am."[a] He said further, "Thus you shall say to the Israelites, "I am has sent me to you.""

God is...I AM. Tell them "I AM" has sent you.

God is, as St. Thomas Aquinas put it, "Ipsum Esse Subsistens", which can be translated as "The Subsistent Act of Being Itself".

God is not a "Being" like you or I. God is not something that has a "genus" like in Biology. So, I'm afraid I am going to have to break your "kritik" rule here, because your idea of God is likely not what the actual Biblical God is. God is beyond our full comprehension. For how can a finite mind truly understand the infinite? How can science, which is the systematic study of observable things in nature, observe the supernatural (which means outside of nature by definition)?

Let me block quote from a website that explains St. Aquinas' complicated philosophy, please read carefully:

"According to Aquinas, all creatures are fundamentally composed of essence and existence. He argues that because one can know the essence of a created thing, i.e. what a thing is, without thereby knowing anything about whether it exists in reality, essence differs from existence. Thus, every created thing is a composition of what it is and an act of existing whereby it is a real, actual thing. (For more on this, see On Being and Essence, Chapter 4.) This act of existing, esse, is sometimes referred to as that feature about things that makes them something rather than nothing, or real as opposed to imagined. (I don't think that these ways of speaking are enough to prove the reality of the distinction, but they illustrate the point.) Since every creature is a composition of essence and esse, there must be a First Cause of this composition that is Himself uncomposed. In God there is no distinction between What He is, i.e. His Essence, and the act wherby He is. (Summa Theologiae Ia, 3, 4) Thus, because God is utterly simple, and not composed, and utterly perfect, he utterly transcends every creature.

However, since no creature exists through itself of itself, every creature is continually kept in existence through continual active causality of God. God is the cause of the being of all things precisely because He is Subsistent Being Itself (ipsum esse subsistens)"


In fact, like many of his ideas, St. Aquinas was very good at reconciling the Ancient Greek Philosophers in his monumental works. The idea of God being "uncomposed" or "uncaused" is something Plato and Socrates talked about.

The idea is called Aseity, and I suggest you read and understand it.

The Bible describes God in this way many many times. The creation account of Genesis, Moses in Exodus, and the opening discourse in the Gospel of John are all heavy texts that illustrate the complexity and paradoxical nature of who God is.

So we can start with that, and I hope this conversation opens your horizons on Christian Theology. Yes, there are several popular depictions of God with a beard and a cane in a cloud, and yes the Catholic Church has plenty of stained glassed window depictions of aforementioned Biblical stories, and LANGUAGE itself is often limiting.

But remember, language is essentially a tool used for communicating ideas. Sometimes language is shallow and cannot completely encapsulate reality, emotions, or even mere thoughts. That's why we celebrate poets and wordsmiths. This again hearkens back to man's inability to fully comprehend I AM, in a similar way, one cannot comprehend the "Tao".

For anyone who had trouble with reading all of this, here is a short video that coincides with what I am talking about.

^It's by Father Robert Barron
Debate Round No. 1


Despite recently joining this site, Pro seems very skilled at debating. I'll give this debate my all.


Point 1; Confirming the criteria

My opponent asks me for evidence suggesting that the Biblical God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. I can probably find such verses.


"For nothing will be impossible with God." [Luke 1:37]

"And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."" [Matthew 19:26]

These two quotes should be enough to demonstrate that the bible claims God is omnipotent; able to do anything.


"Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all." [Psalm 139:4]

"And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do." [Hebrews 4:13]


Do I need to source THIS of all things? I thought everyone knew God loves all (according to the bible). Fine, here's a quote.

"And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone."" [Mark 10:18]

Now that Pro's request was fulfilled, Let's see why these can't be so.

Point 2: Disproving Omnipotence

Omnipotence is the ability to do anything and everything. Here's a question: Is God capable of lying? If, yes, he is, then how do we know God didn't lie about his omnipotence? If no, God isn't capable of lying, then his omnipotence fails.

Let's assume God can lie. The Bible is the word of God. Why not say God lied about his qualities altogether?

Point 3; Disproving Omniscience

Omniscience is infinite knowledge. If he knew natural disasters were coming, then why didn't he stop them?

... I'll just leave it at that. Let's hear Pro's thoughts.


Con seems to think I disagreed with his assertion that God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. I am not opposed to this, I was opposed to the way you phrased your statement. And it indeed speaks to what I know is true of good debaters and poor debaters.

As I said in R1, the Bible has NUMEROUS verses where one can derive those three qualities, however, the Bible does not ever explicitly STATE (your words) those three qualities in sequence as you did. I simply commented that you show poor Biblical scholarship by the way you listed them without any citation whatsoever.

Furthermore, you completely ignored my Biblical citation of God announcing who HE IS. And furthermore the argument supporting that claim through philosophical explanation.

So points off for you.

In response to your claims...

What you are saying is what is known as a PARADOX. If God is all powerful, can he therefore create a boulder impossible of being moved even by Himself, thus defeating his omnipotence?

These questions have been addressed by greater mind than the one I possess, and I suggest you read up on them:

I would simply argue (since you neglected to comment on Ipsum Esse in R1, and the Biblical citation thereof) that for man's finite mind to comprehend an INFINITE concept is impossible. There are SO many ironies in the Christian Faith.

God, one who is beyond all comprehension of power and existence, became a helpless baby in a backwater province of the most powerful empire the world had ever known. And who was more powerful? Augustus Caesar during the Pax Romana, or the infant baby Jesus and his Holy Mother Mary? The Christian Faith illustrates the later, and this is but ONE example of irony. For if you wish to have life, you must lose your own life. A seed cannot grow into a great tree unless it firsts dies.

I can go on, but Christianity addresses all of these paradoxes in its doctrines, theologies, and teachings.


The age old question...why does God allow bad things to happen. Well for me, it all ties into free will vs predestination. Is God not allowing us to purge ourselves of our natural evil and inequities by presenting opportunities for us to act? For it is not by "luck" or "fortune" or even OUR OWN WORKS that allow us salvation and reunification with God, but by HIs grace. What some perceive to be suffering (living in poverty) others see as the Kingdom of Heaven itself (see Mother Theresa). The Catholic Church celebrates its saints who deny the world and embrace the CROSS, and through that CROSS is freedom. The world sees death and suffering when it looks at Christ Crucified, but a Christian sees love and the way to peace. Another irony. For it is in suffering that we see and know CHRIST, who suffered for us.

Another paradox between FREE WILL and PREDESTINATION...the answer is truly beyond our comprehension but let me quote the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) to explain God's position:

"600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination", he includes in it each person's free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place."395 For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.396 "

This is of course a "paradox" to us, but still a reality.

Just as the stars you will see in the sky tonight are a reality:

What you WILL (future) see tonight has already HAPPENED (past) and IS HAPPENING (present) somewhere. You can only perceive time in one fashion, but it does not in reality happen that way. This is a paradox as God is.
Debate Round No. 2


PowerPikachu21 forfeited this round.


Despite being active on this site during the "argument due" portion of this debate, my opponent has declined to provide a rebuttal. He has, however, commented on other topics regarding religion. He did not message me, post a comment, or anything to indicate needing more time. I suppose he just gave up.

Good thing he "is cocky".
Debate Round No. 3


Yeah, I'll just give up. I decided to forfeit Round 3, and, as per the rules of this debate, that counts as my loss. Good game. When I said I was cocky, I meant it. I was fully unprepared, let alone ready for a skilled debater. I haven't even read his argument yet, but I think it's good.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by hutch976 2 years ago
Well PokerPIkachu, I suggest reading my arguments eventually. Aren't debates about getting your views out there as well as the competitive aspect?

I mean really, I would say you are chasing a straw man argument. You should really read arguments that challenge you. I just totally got outmaneuvered in another debate, doesn't make either of us right or wrong, true or false. It helps you grow as a debater, and hey, you might just have a new perspective on something.

Like the actual Biblical definition of God...and then you can stop crapping on it. Praying for ya!
Posted by PowerPikachu21 2 years ago
Okay, I briefly read my opponent's argument, and he kind of ignores his burden. If I hadn't forfeited, I could've pointed out that flaw. My own arguments were very shaky though, so my burden is also unfulfilled. Because of my hasty forfeit, and the rules state as such, vote Con.
Posted by hutch976 2 years ago
For another, and more specific, argument about Evil and the Existence of God, please reference this website:
Posted by PowerPikachu21 2 years ago
@Anthola I agree it is difficult to prove the biblical God exists. This is why I decided to have the Burden of Proof shared. If Pro had all of the burden, then it would almost be unfair.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
The bible can not be used to prove anything, the book does not meet the criteria for a credible source.
The Bible is not a reliable historical source because it does not meet the standard criteria of source reliability used by historians. The Bible is not, as many believers assume, eye witness testimony. Reliable sources are generally based on authors who were eye witnesses to an event . Since any particular source my be fabricating their story, multiple independent sources are usually required for confidence. Establishing the lack of author biases, including religious motivations, is also necessary if a work is to be read at face value. The Bible satisfies none of these requirements.
Based on historical and archaeological research, there are known historical inaccuracies in the Bible. The Bible is considered mythological by most historians. Because of this, the Bible cannot itself be used as an argument that the events it describes actually occurred.
Posted by Anthola 2 years ago
Listen, there is no way to answer this question, there is no testable evidence that shows that a god does or does not exist. Although there is lots of evidence that supports that a god does not exist versus one existing, do not shift the burden of proof over to your side. The burden of proof lies on one party in the debate. If both sides share the Burden of proof, it will be impossible to deduct any clear points on answers, I suggest you rephrase the conditions of this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: con ff'd and gave up
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession in the final round.