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

God is imaginary.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/30/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,748 times Debate No: 26730
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




My opinion: I am an atheist who finds it hard to believe in the bible and here is why:
1. Lack of Evidence: There is no scientific evidence indicating that God exists. We all know that. For example:

God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.
None of Jesus' "miracles" left any physical evidence either.
God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.
The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone.
The Bible we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God.
When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers."
Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God.
And so on"
Let's agree that there is no empirical evidence showing that God exists.
If you think about it as a rational person, this lack of evidence is startling. There is not one bit of empirical evidence indicating that today's "God", nor any other contemporary god, nor any god of the past, exists. In addition we know that:

If we had scientific proof of God's existence, we would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God".
If we had scientific proof of God's existence, the study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one.
If we had scientific proof of God's existence, all religious people would be aligning on the God that had been scientifically proven to exist. Instead there are thousands of gods and religions.
The reason for this lack of evidence is easy for any unbiased observer to see. The reason why there is no empirical evidence for God is because God is imaginary.

2. The Bibles author is not 'all knowing': Why, when you read the Bible, are you not left in awe? For example, look though this small collection of Bible verses:

Deut 25:11-12
Genesis 38:8-10
Deut 21:18-21
Ex 35:2
Lev 20:13
Isaiah 13:13-16
Exodus 21:20-21
1 Tim 2:11-12
Col 3:22-23
Luke 14:26
Deut 22:13-21
Isaiah 40:8
These verses feel like utter nonsense, don't they? We can find thousands of verses like these in the Bible.
So we are forced to ask a question: Why doesn't a book written by God leave you with a sense of wonder and amazement? If you are reading a book written by the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving creator of the universe, wouldn't you expect to be stunned by the brilliance, the clarity and the wisdom of the author? Would you not expect each new page to intoxicate you with its incredible prose and its spectacular insight?

Instead, opening the Bible inevitably creates a feeling of dumbfoundment. Have you ever noticed that? Instead of brilliance, much of the Bible contains nonsense. Several of the topics of the previous proofs, for example where we discussed the Bible's advocacy of slavery, are excellent examples. But they are just the tip of the iceberg. You can open the Bible to almost any page and find nonsense instead of wisdom.

Why, in other words, is the Bible so useless? Why does the author of the Bible, who is supposed to be God, who is supposed to be all-knowing, know so little? Why is the knowledge of the author limited to the knowledge of the primitive men who wrote the book? If you think about what you are reading in the Bible in the context of an all-knowing God who supposedly wrote it, none of it makes any sense. But if you think about the Bible as being a book written by primitive men like you would find in the remote regions of Afghanistan today, it makes complete sense.

The reason is because God is imaginary. "God" had nothing to do with the Bible. The Bible was written by primitive men, many of who were obviously insane.

and lastly 3: Understand Ambiguity: Let's imagine that you have cancer and that you are a believer. You pray to God for a cure, you undergo surgery and chemotherapy, and the cancer does in fact go into remission.

What cured you? Was it the chemotherapy, or was it God?

In other words, is there any way to know whether God is playing a role or not when we pray?

The problem is that, in this imagined case, there is ambiguity. The Christian believes that God answered the prayer, but it could also be a simple coincidence.

All scientific evidence clearly indicates that it is, in fact, a coincidence. Whenever we do a scientific experiment on the efficacy of prayer, the data shows no effect from prayer (see this proof). Scientific evidence indicates that "answered prayers" really are coincidences every single time.

So how do we figure this out? Is God answering prayers as Christians believe, or is it coincidence as science indicates?

The way to answer that question is to remove the ambiguity. We make it impossible for the "answered prayer" to be a coincidence, and then we see what happens.

The way to remove the ambiguity is to say a prayer that cannot be answered by coincidence. For example, instead of praying that God cures one person's cancer, pray that God eliminates all cancer tomorrow. There is only one way for that to happen. God would have to exist, and God would have to reach down from heaven and explicitly work a miracle on earth.

What we find whenever we perform an unambiguous experiment like this is that God never answers unambiguous prayers. Jesus promises in many places in the Bible that he will answer prayers -- even impossible prayers. But what you find whenever you put Jesus to the test is that Jesus is making a false promise.

What we find is that God never answers impossible prayers - even if the prayers are incredibly worthy. For example:

Pray to God to levitate a car and hold it floating in the air for ten minutes. It will not happen, even if you are praying to levitate the car because a drunk driver has run over a college freshman and she is currently pinned under one of the wheels.
Pray to God to let you fly through the air like Superman. It will not happen, even if you are praying to fly like superman so that you can rise up to a tenth story window and save two children from their burning apartment.
Pray to God to fill your basement with $100 million in small unmarked bills. It will not happen, even if you plan to donate the $100 million that God gives you to a worthy and deserving charity.
Pray to God to restore the amputated limbs of a deserving, penitent believer. It will not happen, no matter how sincere you are in your prayer.
None of these prayers will ever be answered. We know that with certainty. If they were answered, we would see people flying thought the air like Superman on the evening news. We would see amputated limbs regenerating all the time. Every Christian charity would be fully funded and there would not be 10 million children starving to death every year.
These unambiguous prayers are how we know, for sure, that God/Jesus are not actually answering prayers. The scientific evidence is correct. "Answered prayers" are nothing more than simple coincidences every single time. The whole idea of "God answering prayers" is a complete illusion because God is imaginary.


I will be playing devil's advocate, my opponent may now present his case.
Debate Round No. 1


theswifttransgressor forfeited this round.


emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


theswifttransgressor forfeited this round.


emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


theswifttransgressor forfeited this round.


emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Nidhogg 3 years ago
I'm interested to see what pro does. He has wasted all of his plagarism on Round 1.
Also, Devil's Advocate FTW!
Posted by Microsuck 3 years ago
Nice plagarism, pro
Posted by emospongebob527 3 years ago
Dude, I can refute it later.
Posted by Noradrenergic 3 years ago
People don't seem to read peoples arguments or posts around here, even when they're debating the person.
Posted by emospongebob527 3 years ago
Oh well, I have more time to refute.
Posted by philochristos 3 years ago
"I will be playing devil's advocate, my opponent may now present his case."

Ha! Your opponent just DID present his case, and you wasted a round by not responding to his case.
No votes have been placed for this debate.