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

God do Exist

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,155 times Debate No: 30704
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)




Greetings in Peace,

This debate is intended to tackle if God really exist or not. To avoid generalization and confusion, let's limit the topic to the Christian God. I argue that this God, name Jesus, do exist, and His divinity and being God is for real.

My opponent should oppose this.

Rules would be:
1) No trolls and semantics
2) Strictly abide to round rules
3) When you debate, not only in here, in ANY DEBATE with ANY PLAYER, please, make sure you will play, not take a debate and waste 5 rounds.

Round Rules:
1) Introduction and Acceptance
2) Open Arguments
3) Rebuttals and new arguments
4) Rebuttals from Round 3
5) Conclusion, no new arguments

Thanks and God bless!


Thanks, I accept. State your case.
Debate Round No. 1


Stating the Argument:

Point One: History

Historical evidences of Jesus in lo of support from other fields like archaeology are existing today.

The seen article shows Jesus' existence via archaeological facts

"It's March, Easter approaches, and new books about Jesus have appeared. It is an interesting and diverse batch this time around. Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth" (Harper) very ably assembles the evidence, showing that claims that there never was a historical Jesus fly in the face of common sense and more than sufficient evidence. "The Jesus Discovery" (Simon & Schuster) by James Tabor and Simcha Jacobivici argues that a south Jerusalem tomb (called the "Patio Tomb" because it is accessed via the patio of a condo) belonged to a first-generation Christian family. Tabor and Jacobovici think they have found an inscription that alludes to Jesus resurrected and ascended to heaven. Archaeologists are not convinced; some are complaining that the authors have grossly misinterpreted the evidence. Ehrman's interpretation of the evidence is convincing; Tabor's and Jacobovici's is not."

To read more on this topic, click:

Historians like Tacitus and Josephus also supports Jesus' existence by recording some of His' life's story.

Josephus on Jesus:

Point Two: Deaths for Jesus

Surely, you won't die for a joke or for a lie. Perhaps, you are sentenced to torture and to admit if something or someone is real or a reality, and now, you are to admit it or not. Usually, when you say, "Yes, it is true", you are to be tortured, usually, too, because the judge and the rest did not like it to be true.

The people who sentenced Jesus' apostles and disciples to death DID NOT LIKE Jesus, and therefore, they want to hear from His' disciples that Jesus is just a joke, but then, people like Apostle Paul and Apostle Peter died for Jesus' sake. Why? Because they know He's real.

Point Three: Resurrection

"After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep." - 1 Cor. 15:6

This historical evidences assures His' resurrection. This is a stronger case that 500 men saw Him. This is a historical fact, not a myth, so, this has to be true. What's amazing is that, this is not hallucination as well. By logical fact, it is IMPOSSIBLE for 500 MEN (FIVE HUNDRED) to hallucinate AT THE SAME TIME.

Point Four: Science does not refute God, but man

I am for Science as well, both Science and Mathematics, but, it does not mean, there is no God. Let me take an example: The Big Bang Theory is widely used as a means to debunk God, though its real purpose is to explain the universe's creation.

At another point of view, does Big Bang has to do something with God? None. Singularity won't debunk God. Who knows, when God is speaking, all the things the Big Bang explains are happening.

Other theories like Evolution has nothing to do with God, as Evolution is still a theory. There are more possibilities rather than Evolution.


God do exist via Historical facts and Biblical evidences, the same time, Science cannot be the means to debunk Him.

No one will die for a joke or for a lie, how come many people like His' Apostles die for Him? Forget about the Crusades, I am referring to the persecution of the Christians during the Apostles' time.


I would like to thank Pro for his reply. I will now follow the debate structure and post my arguments against the resolution.

I'm defending the position that God probably doesn't exist.

Argument 1: Non Cognitivism

The Argument from Non Cognitivism is formed like this, [1]

1. There are three attributes of existants which concern us particularly, these being:

A. Primary Attributes: A fundamental character of a thing, may be defined as the basic nature a particular thing is composed of. What a thing is, specifically, that it may do particular things or affect those around it in a particular way. The following two types of attributes provided below can only be applied to a thing if they can be related to an existant's primary attribute and the primary attribute is positively identified [2]

B. Secondary Attributes: Secondary Attributes: the character traits or abilities a particular thing may enact or possess. examples: being generous, kind, powerful, wise. [3]

C. Relational Attributes.: An association of the character. I.E. King Henry the VIII. King is the relational attribute.

2. B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existant"s A in order to be considered meaningful.
3. The term "God" lacks a positively identified A.
4. Because of this, the term "God" holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)
5. However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.
6. Therefore, the term "God" is meaningless. (From 3, 4, 5)
7. Therefore, the god-concept is invalid.

A meaningless word can't have any proper concept. It would just be a meaningless sound coming out of our mouths. Until "God" is defined all arguments are proving nothing.

If someone said "A "Plorp" exists" we would need to ask what a "Plorp" is. Without a clear definition of a "plorp" any concept of it is invalid.

Argument 2: Argument From Correct Choice

This argument shows that choosing a theistic worldview is contradictory. In order to state you believe in God, a criteria of “correct choice” must exist. It is formed like so (with a little modifying done by me) [4]

1. Materialist apologetics is true, principles and absolutes are impossible to justify from the theological worldview.

1a. Theism implies divine causation is true.
2b. If divine causation is true, then all facts in the universe are contingent.
3c. All facts in the universe is contingent to God’s act of creation, and nothing in the universe is necessary. No principles or absolutes are possible (since the uniformity of reality is no longer necessary).

2. Any conscious choice implies a principle of correctness.
3. Choosing the theistic worldview is a choice, and therefore implies a principle of correctness. (from 2)

C. Choosing the theistic worldview is self-contradictory. Atheism is the only consistent worldview. (from 1 and 3)

Argument 3: Problem of Evil

Since Pro wants to argue for a Christian God I will use this argument I wouldn't normally use in these types of debates.

Classic formulation

"Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Basic formulation

1. If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist.

Complex formulation

1. God exists.
2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
5. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the 6. power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
7. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
8. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
9. Evil exists (logical contradiction).

C. God probably doesn't exist.

Back to Pro


[2] Ibid
[3] Ibid
Debate Round No. 2


I thank Con for his argument. Going now to Rebuttal area.

Rebuttal One: Non Cognitivism

Let us say that God does not meet point A or the Primary Attribute. We haven't seen God in person, but again, History reveals that their is this God named Jesus.

The challenge here is: Is Jesus God? Or just a person?

Point One: Deaths for Jesus

As said, many people died for Christ's sake. I am referring to the persecution of the early Christians, not on religious wars. People won't die on a joke or a lie, but many people who TESTIFIED for Christ that HE IS GOD die - for His' sake.

Point Two: Resurrection: Reality or Hallucination?

A lot of people suspect the resurrection case as caused by hallucination, until they realized that it is impossible for 500 men (FIVE HUNDRED) men to hallucinate AT THE SAME TIME.

Rebuttal Two: Argument from Correct Choice

I won't dwell too much on this, but, one thing that I can say: We need evidences to place our beliefs. That's why I am presenting why God (Christian God - Jesus) is true and He is indeed existing and moving in us.

Rebuttal Three: Problem is Evil

This seemed to be a mathematical conjecture and based on a pattern line, but lo, we cannot use Mathematics in an argument for God. In lo of evil, let us remind ourselves that God is like us: We have our own heart and mind, same with Him.

Some people were known to be good, but how come they do bad?

But well, God is another thing: I know He knows what He is doing. We just need to trust.

God cannot be caged in "If then" statements and be patterned like a mathematical conjecture. The same way, you cannot pattern someone based on how he/she is known or I you know him/her.

New arguments:

Point One: Evidences of the Bible

The Bible's Sodom and Gomorrah, Walls of Jericho are all historically approved.

Back to Con.

Hoping for greater rounds. :D :)



I will now respond to my opponents main arguments that God “do” exist.

Point 1: Existence of Jesus

I'm skeptical about the existence of Jesus, however it doesn't hurt my case if he existed. So I will not debate that here and just concede it.

Point 2: Would someone die for a lie?

The “would you die for a lie” argument can't prove anything. It makes a list of assumptions

The gist of this argument is that the miracles or resurrection of Jesus must've happened in order for the apostles to be so willing to die for their beliefs.

This ignores many possibilities, such as

*They themselves were tricked. Jesus could've really believed he was real, but he could've been deluded himself.
*They remembered the events differently than what actually happened because the false event was constantly being reinforced by everyone else.
*They considered the cause to be true, but embellished or exaggerated some things.
*They were killed for some other reason and the reason was later embellished.

*They could've said it all was a lie, but that concession was never made public.

This argument isn't based on the New Testament at all, or sufficient evidence. The Gospels nor the Epistles talk about someone dying for their belief that Jesus rose from the dead. The only martyrs mentioned in the NT are, [1]

*Stephen in Acts. He himself wasn't an eyewitness, but a later convert. If he died, he would've died based on hearsay. In the story he wasn't even killed for his beliefs, but on a false charge. [2]

*Apostle James in Acts. We're not told why he's killed, what he died for, nor if recanting would save him. [3]

That's it for martyrdom until the 2nd century. In the 2nd century we hear about Christians being burned for a false charge of arson by Nero [4]. We don't know if any eyewitnesses, but it would be irrelevant because they were killed via a false charge of arson.

As Richard Carrier said

As far as we can tell, apart from perhaps James, no one knew what the fate was of any of the original eye-witnesses. People were even unclear about who the original eye-witnesses were"

he continues to debunk another martyr

There were a variety of legends circulating centuries later about their travels and deaths, but it is clear from our earliest sources that no one knew for certain. There was only one notable exception: the martyrdom of Peter. This we do not hear about until two or three generations after the event, and it is told in only one place: the Gnostic Acts of Peter, which was rejected as a false document by many Christians of the day. But even if this account is true, it claims that Peter was executed for political meddling and not for his beliefs” [5]

It's clear, those who died say nothing about dying for their beliefs.

Point 3: Resurrection

Cause and effect problem

Pro states an effect, that Jesus rose from the grave, and expects this to prove a cause. This is clearly not done, Pro needs to prove even if Jesus rose from the grave that God actually did it. If Pro is going to invoke the supernatural, then how do we know Jesus wasn't risen by some wizard wanting to mess with his followers. We don't! Even if Jesus did rise, I don't know if there's any way to prove that it was caused by God and not something such as magic or aliens. Until Pro proves the cause of this effect was by God, his argument doesn't affirm the resolution that “God do exist.”

The 500 and Circularity.

Pro claims it's a historical fact that 500 people say Jesus. What Pro is doing here is assuming the bible is correct, to prove the bible is correct, and that is pure question begging. There's no conformation of the 500. None of the Gospels mention this, no writer other than Paul mentions it. We have no names or evidence this happened, nothing but assertion.

I have a question for Pro. If I told you my friend rose from the grave would you believe me? Probably not, but if I wrote in a language you can't read, buried for 2000 years, and said 500 people saw it, then would you would believe it?

Pro's evidence is unconvincing.

Point 4: Science doesn't refute God.

This point is irrelevant. If science doesn't refute God, this doesn't mean he exists. Science also doesn't refute the flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorns, nor invisible magic tea cups. The reason why science doesn't refute any of these is because science deals with what we can test. None of these things listed can be tested within our world, therefore science doesn't make a claim about them.

Pro says something here that just bugs me and I must address. He says that “Evolution is still a theory.” This is true, but so is gravity. Pro doesn't understand what a theory actually is. defines theory as

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.[6]

So to say “Evolution is still a theory” is just to say “Evolution is just a group of facts that have been repeatedly tested”.

New arguments

Pro wants to give new arguments in this round for some reason. So this I will do.

Main argument

This is the main syllogism of my argument.

1. 2 Timothy 3:16 says “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,”
2. God is suppose to be perfect
3. His scripture is full of errors making it imperfect
4. A perfect God can't breath an imperfect book

C. The God of the bible doesn't exist.

Justifying Premise 3.

I will justify premise 3 with these 2 arguments

1. Contradiction between Jesus' birth

The Problem

The Gospel of Luke claims (2.1-2) that Jesus was born during a census that we know from the historian Josephus took place after Herod the Great died, and after his successor, Archelaus, was deposed. But Matthew claims (2.1-3) that Jesus was born when Herod the Great was still alive--possibly two years before he died (2:7-16). Other elements of their stories also contradict each other. Since Josephus precisely dates the census to 6 A.D. and Herod's death to 4 B.C., and the sequence is indisputable, Luke and Matthew contradict each other.” - Richard Carrier [7]

Many have tried to refute this contradiction, yet none have succeed. Some have tried to claim that Quirinius was governor twice. In Roman history there's no evidence that someone ever governed a province twice. Further evidence show there was no possible way for him to be governor twice, since we know who was governor between 12-3 B.C. Richard Carrier refutes every apologist answer to this contraction in [7]

...this becomes an irreconcilable contradiction after an examination of all the relevant facts.” - Richard Carrier

2. The Bible and Geocentricism

Joshua 10:13 says

So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.”

In the essay "The Scriptural Basis for a Geocentric Cosmology" Glenn Elert writes

The most important biblical quote supporting a geocentric universe can be found in the Book of Joshua. This will be used as the starting point for our scriptural cosmology.

Joshua 10:13 is quoted

The evidence in support of a geocentric model is overwhelming here. Joshua commanded the sun to stand still. He did not order the earth to cease rotating nor did he qualify his statement with the divine knowledge that the sun was merely made to appear stationary. The sun was commanded to stand still because it is the sun that moves..” [8]

The sun always stands still, there's no miracle. Saying the sun stopped and delayed for a full day is saying the sun revolves around the Earth. For such a long time we understood this to be wrong. Geocentricism has failed so many predictions and its competing Heliocentrism model comes out the winner every time. [9]

The resolution is negated

Back to Pro

Debate Round No. 3


For Round 4:

Rebuttals from Round 3.

Rebuttal One: The Bible isn't perfect

The best challenge here is to show proofs that the Bible is indeed imperfect. Which or else, I will win this.

Rebuttal Two: Birth of Jesus

I do not believe in this, but, with this case, it still won't hurt my case as far as history concerns is that, Jesus exist. Time of birth has a lot of contradictions like December 25 vs May. As far as the topic concerns, "God do Exist". To concede, Jesus do exist.

Rebuttal Three: The Bible and Geocentricism

Joshua 10:13 seems to be more of figurative or pictorial representation, as we all know, the Sun "rotates" us, (Take note, I use an " meaning to say, its not literal). Second, the Bible is not a Science book, so, it won't really tackle about our universe's physical attributes.

There is this so called "General vs Strict Sense". In General term, the Sun moves from West to East, but in Strict terms, the Earth rotates around the Sun.

Back to Con.


I would like to suggest that Pro be more specific in his debate structure in the future. He said this round is "Rebuttals from Round 3". I thought this meant rebutting everything from R3. Not just the new argument. Is a defense of our opening arguments going to be posted in the next round?

Pro's New Argument: Biblical Archeology

The argument from biblical archeology is now labeled a “Spiderman fallacy” which is a type of Composition fallacy

A recently coined logical fallacy. It follows that archaeologists 1,000 years from now unearth a collection of Spiderman comics. From the background art, they can tell it takes place in New York City. NYC is an actual place, as confirmed by archaeology. However, this does not mean that Spiderman existed.

Often used to illustrate the flaw in the assertion by evangelical Christians that archaeologists unearthing biblical cities today "proves" that the Bible was written by a supernatural force.

The Spiderman Fallacy is committed any time the discovery of a mundane element from a myth, legend, or story is taken to mean that ALL other parts of that story, even the supernatural, are also true.”

There is actually much evidence against biblical archaeology today.

Matthew Sturgis said

A new generation of archaeologists has emerged...they are challenging the intellectual assumptions of their predecessors...During the years since World War II it has become harder and harder to escape this sense of doubt. The expected discoveries of specific biblical artifacts and buildings were simply not being made...Discrepancies between the biblical account and the ever increasing archaeological record become more noticeable and harder to ignore...Rather than using the Old Testament as a field guide, the current crop of archaeologists is increasingly putting the Bible aside...The very term biblical archaeology has become tainted, and is now rejected by many academics...The old quest to confirm the historical truths of the events in the Bible has been replaced by a new agenda: to build a full and detailed picture of life in the ancient Near East. If the Bible is consulted at all, it is approached with varying degrees of skepticism. The onus of proof has shifted: the text [of the Bible] is now considered historically unreliable until proven otherwise.” [2]

Walls of Jericho

In the 1930s, an archaeological expedition was led by a man named John Gerstang. He hoped to find evidence of the Jericho walls as described in the bible. The evidence from his journey came up to what he believed to be conclusive. He found broken fragments of pottery in some houses that were built over the walls and dated them to about 1400 B.C. In the time and place where the bible said! [3]

However, further investigation continued by Kathleen Kenyon and she proved Gerstang to be wrong. She proved the walls were destroyed about a thousand years before Gerstang’s date! That's 2,300 B.C! Her interpretation is accepted by archaeologists today, not Gerstang’s! There also couldn't of been another wall, because the evidence between 1400 and 1300 BC shows there was only one tiny building and some tombs. Jericho wouldn't of been settled and they would've found just a few huts or possibly nothing at all in the time of 1300 B.C. The bible was wrong, again.[4][5][6][7]

Pro's argument is based on the Spider man fallacy, furthermore archaeological evidence is now at odds with the bible and can actually be used as an argument against the bible.

The resolution is negated

Back to Pro for his conclusion.



[2] Sturgis, It Ain't Necessarily So: p36-3


[4] Ibid

[5] Davidson & Leaney, Biblical Criticism: p46

[6] Fox, The Unauthorized Version: p226-227

[7] Stiebing, Out of the Desert: p46-47

Debate Round No. 4


Conclusion Round:

As I had mentioned, Jesus exist via historical proofs and evidences and His divine nature is proven by His' resurrection. The resurrection account, however, is proven via history, too, and is believed not to be some sort of delusion.

Thank you for my opponent for this fun debate. God bless!


Pro"s evidence was circular and had a cause and effect problem. My arguments still stand. The ANC shows God is meaningless, correct choice argument shows you can't choose to believe in God, and the POE shows a God with the three attributes described cannot exist.

Go forth and vote!
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by BillyTheKids 4 years ago
God do exist, Gods do? God does????
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
I'll take this if you make it four rounds instead of five. I don't like to read five round debates, so I don't want to ask anyone else to do so. I like three round debates, but since the first round is challenge and acceptance, four is good.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Magicr 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: In the end, Pro dropped most of Con's arguments and rebuttals and failed to sufficiently respond to just about all of them. A pretty one way debate.
Vote Placed by likespeace 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 Checkmark-1 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: Pro claimed that a historical Jesus existed--which Magic8000 reasonably conceded. Pro did not provide any evidence this historical Jesus died on the cross for his beliefs or was resurrected. Pro's "500 witnesses" turned out to be one person claiming to have 500 witnesses! Pro also did not have a good answer to the clever "What if he was resurrected by an evil wizard?" or Con's other counter-arguments. Pro fell far short of meeting the burden of proof for "God do Exist". If he had read philochristo's Historical Jesus debate, he would've had better chances at this. I also award spelling and grammar to Con for obvious reasons including the very title of the resolution.
Vote Placed by Subutai 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments don't seem to stand up to con's. To begin with, con had better and more sources than pro, and con had excellent S&G when compared to pro. On to the arguments themselves, pro's arguments seem to be flawed to begin with, and when the defense come in round 4, pro really has no answer. Con, on the other hand, started great and defended is arguments well. All and all just a better performance by con.