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

God's Not Dead

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 483 times Debate No: 69806
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




Hi :). Thank you for participating in this discussion. I believe the answers to the following questions point to the existence of God and can help get our conversation started:

-Do you think it's inconsistent for someone who lacks belief in God to work against His existence by attempting to show that He doesn't exist?

-On a scale of 1-10, how sure are you that atheism is truth? Define truth.

-Are you a materialist, physicalist, or something else?

-Is atheism a worldview and why/why not?

-I know not all atheists are antagonistic to Christianity, but for those who are, why so and what's the need to? Did you believe in God at one time? If so, what made you lose faith? Do you believe the world would be better off without religion, and specifically Christianity?

-Do you believe faith is a mental disorder?

-Must God be known through the scientific method or would that be making a category mistake by requiring material evidence for an immaterial God?

-Do we have purpose being humans, and if so, how would that be determined?

-Where does morality come from and are there moral absolutes that you could name?What makes something moral and what is the basis of your morality? Do any actions automatically have moral value, such as rape, or do we assign its moral value?

-Does evil exist and could you define it? If you believe that the God of the Old Testament is morally bad, by what standard do you judge Him being bad?

-What would cause you to believe in God and what would you consider evidence: rational/archaeological/testable in a lab?

-Would society run by Christians or atheists be safer and why? How would you know if a society is improving morally?

-Do you believe in free will and do you see any problem with defending the idea that the physical brain, which is limited and subject to the neuro-chemical laws of the brain, can still produce free will choices?

-If you believe in evolution and that the universe will continually expand forevermore, is it probable that brains would evolve to the point of exceeding mere physical limitations and become free of them, thereby become "deity" and not be restricted by space and time? If so, is it probable that some sort of God exists?

-Was atheist Joseph Stalin wrong for killing over 42 million people in the 1900s and why/why not?

-From your perspective, is rape wrong even if it furthers the species? If you say rape is wrong because it harms someone, why is harm the morality standard?

-If you believe something is morally wrong such as rape, should you do something about it and what gives you the moral right to do that?

I believe Atheism is a negative position. Not believing in God and choosing to not exercise belief/non-belief. I never hear any evidence for atheism's validity. There is no proofs that God doesn't exist. That isn't saying atheists haven't attempted offering proofs. But they're always invariably insufficient. How do you prove there is no God in the universe and that in all places and all times there is no God? If there was proof of God's non-existence, then atheists would be continually using it. Atheism is very difficult to impossible to prove since it's attempting to prove a negative. Therefore, atheists must have faith just like I do as a Christian. That's not something atheists like to claim, so they go attacking/negating any evidence presented for God's existence in order to earn intellectual credence, if they can create an evidential vacuum for no theistic argument to survive. In negating theistic evidence, atheism justifies itself. The only way atheism is intellectually defensible is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. The atheist would propose the possibility of no God, but stating that something is possible doesn't mean it's reality or wise. If I said it's possible there's an ice cream factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or worth believing as a possibility? Claiming a possibility based on nothing but possibility, is not sufficient for viability. They must come up with more than possibilities and lack of evidence or there really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter. The atheist should step on the band wagon and start defending the Jupiter ice cream's existence. Christians give evidence such as fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus's resurrection, the Transcendental Argument, the entropy problem, etc.. Refuting evidence God's existence doesn't prove atheism. Atheism is intellectually indefensible. They can only say there's no convincing evidence for God so far. They can't say there's no evidence because they can't know all evidences that possibly exist. This logically means that there could be evidences presented in the future that will suffice. They must see there's maybe indeed proof that's undiscovered. So all claimed atheists are agnostic since they can only be skeptical. That's why atheists need to attack Christianity since we challenge their beliefs. They like the universe with only one god: themselves.

If we theorized about the manifestation of Christian Immaterial, we would expect evidences to display transcendence/personhood. The Bible infers God exists outside the material world as a living being. Evidence wouldn't be restricted to materialistic because it wouldn't be distinguishable from the material realm. If presented, the materialist atheist would have three options: accept it, dismiss it based on their materialistic worldview, or examine it and decide later. Examining transcendent evidence needs a standard not restricted to a materialist worldview. This would work against their own position. Since a Transcendent God who created the universe wouldn't be limited to it, but would transcend it, then we expect evidence for God's existence would be transcendent and would exhibit qualities of a Personal Being who is not dependent on the physical universe. If the Transcendent Christian God exists and entered our material world, then His manifestation would be self-revealing through a decision to reveal himself and wouldn't be external revelation, but internal revelation. This self-revelation would reveal His truth and goodness. His self-revelation wouldn't be self-contradictory or subject to human approval since this would be subjecting the natural to supernatural, a category mistake. Any self-revelation of the Christian God would be miraculous and couldn't be explained by materialism. How would we test this self-revelation in a laboratory? Miracles could be verified. They couldn't be repeated because this wouldn't suggest a God who acts out of his own will. They would suggest material phenomena that's repeatable/ predictable. Materialistic atheists wanting scientific proof for God's existence is simply making the wrong request. If you truly want to find out if God exists, you must change your worldview to include the possibility of God's self-revelation to you. It would be impossible without. Is there Transcendent Evidence? The Christian worldview says God is self-revealing, authoritative, and miraculous. In the Bible, we find the self-revelation of God and never see the questioning of God's authority. It also contains the miraculous records, from the parting of the Red Sea to the eyewitness accounts of the Jesus's resurrection. You may ask how other religions claim the same thing? We'd have to look at their truth claims and apply the same tests, such as internal consistency and the miraculous. Atheists discount the Bible with its evidence because it doesn't fit within their presupposed materialistic worldview. The Bible's claims of being authored by God cannot be accepted by them. Atheists claim the Bible says "God exists therefore God exists" is faulty logic known as circular reasoning. It's not circular reasoning when we 1st examine what transcendental evidence might be (self-revelatory, authoritative, and miraculous), and then propose something that meets the criteria. Bible-rejecting atheists rejecting God's authorship based on a non-transcendent materialistic worldview is a category mistake. Rejecting the Bible based on materialism cannot validate his materialism as being true without begging the question. Materialistic verifications are based on materialistic assumptions. If atheists attack the Bible based on their idea of moral absurdities in it, then by what objective/ non-subjective moral standard does he judge the Bible with? Atheists saying the Bible is illogical with contradictions would need proof using the transcendental laws of logic, which don't fit in their materialistic worldview. Atheists attacking the Bible based on logic is faulty because materialistic atheism commits the logical fallacy of begging the question. Materialism/atheism can't be proven. How are atheists "proving" there's no God and that materialism is right without assuming its own validity? Whether or not atheists accept it, the Bible meets the evidence of a transcendental God in it's self-revelation/authority/miracles. If you keep the unverifiable materialistic worldview, you will never be able to discover if God actually exists.

Materialism theorizes matter as the only thing that exists and everything can be explained naturally. This means that everything would operate within physical laws, including the human brain. Materialistic atheists have no intellectual justification whatsoever to trust his own thinking because he couldn't exceed physics/chemistry.
There'd be no reason to rationality conclude since their brain would be mechanical. How does 1 chemical state leading to another state produce logical thought? The human brain is sophisticated, but restricted to physical laws and responding in predictable ways would mean the same responses would always occur. Atheists would have no reason to trust their thoughts about reality. Materialistic atheism is self-refuting since it can't rationally defend its truth and could never be known as truth if our brain is pre-programmed to fail.


Ill try to work in order from the top down on your points, keep in mind this is my first debate so I may get a bit confused to how the whole thing works. However you have asked so many questions and put forth so many arguments that i'll have to skip some along the way in my opening arguments maybe ill come back to them. Ill try to address the ones that I feel are most notable.

- We are not working against god (because he does not exist) we are working against the idea of god, and ideas people have about the reality of the universe

- like Sam Harris I try not to call myself or use the word atheist rather non-believer. Why? because there shouldn't be a word for not believing in fairy tales, is there a word for not believing in astrology or santa claus? No. I am 99.99999999%and so on sure that god does not exist (ill get back to why that number is not 100%)

- My philosophy draws on aspects of existential nihilism

-'is atheism a worldview'? The definition of worldview is "A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group" so yes

- I used to be a fundamentalist Christian, lost faith after reading the bible, and the world would be absolutely better off without religion especially the three main monotheistic religions

- Faith by definition is the belief in something without proof, and the teaching that faith is a virtue is a ignorant teaching that can only breed stupidity


- as an existential nihilist I believe no, however one can make one's own life meaningful in a subjective manner

-morality is a extremely complicated (and perhaps an entirely different debate to be had) and would take pages and pages to discuss where it came form, in Richard Dawkins 'The God Delusion' he dedicates an entire chapter to this issue however in short my argument would be that it is a type of byproduct of evolutionary mems (not a misspelling I mean mems). Yes genocide is objectively wrong (somthing Moses and religious types obviously dont agree on in relation to the amalekites)

- Yes evil exists and the Abrahamic god is evil. By the standards of common sense drawn from our morals, anyone who authorises genocide is an evil coward

- Something like the return of Jesus (as a former preacher of the rapture) which will never happen

- it depends on the level of the belief in god and the type of person, certainly not a fundamentalist christian or anyone who claims to draw their morality from scripture. But if the only difference was belive than the non-believer. The new moral ideas of women's rights and animal rights are definitely a step forward in relation to your question, along with the abolition of slavery (again something if people get their morals from god is perfectly ok)

-the issue of free will is an entirely different topic of debate (I recommend reading 'Free Will' by Sam Harris which has some interesting arguments against free will) I however an 'agnostic' on the issue of free will

-many scientist do believe we will eventually be able to upload our consciousness to a 'computer' but an immortal consciousness is in no way a step towards being a theistic god (maybe a deistic god in relation to the creation of your own immortality)

- of course he was morally wrong I have already shown my views on genocide and beings that authorise them, yes he was an atheist but did not kill for aesthetic reasons rather his own political ideology and aspirations


-obviously, because it harms a fellow human being and suffering is always bad (another issue religious people disagree on)

Now to the argument
Yes it's true you cannot disprove (ATM) the existence of god (this is why i'm 99.9% sure), to use Richard Dawkins argument the same way one cannot disprove the existence of the 'invisible flying spaghetti monster' or your ice cream factory on Jupiter but this in no way adds any credibility to the argument that he is real. So to turn you own Ice cream factory argument around on you no atheist would ever defend that position because atheists only believe things based on evidence (thus why the disbelief in god), the only people who would believe if there was one on jupiter would be people who if they found that it said so in some 'holy book' even despite observations of the plant. A claim based on faith rather than evidence.
This "proof that's undiscovered" argument that you forwarded is the weakest argument I've ever heard of. By that logic every single fact ever could always have "proof that's undiscovered" which is a completely irrational way of thinking.

I do believe that there was a fellow named jesus 2000 years ago who had a following, but he was certainly not the son of god or performed miracles and there is absolutely no evidence for this to be true. The only evidence you can claim is gospel writings which Ill now address. All biblical historians christian and others of different worldviews all cite that the first gospel (Mark) was started not when Jesus was alive or even directly after his death, but at earliest 40 years after his crucifixion and up to 150, so everything we know about the life of Jesus is based on hearsay evidence which in my country Australia does not hold up in a court of law so why do we think it hold up in a debate.

now for my first argument
Let's say that the consensus is that our species, being the higher primates, Homo Sapiens, has been on the planet for at least 100,000 years, maybe more. Francis Collins (a devout christian) says maybe 100,000. Richard Dawkins thinks maybe a quarter-of-a-million. I'll take 100,000. This is what you have to believe In order to be a Christian, for 98,000 years, our species suffered and died, most of its children dying in childbirth, most other people having a life expectancy of about 25 years, dying of their teeth. Famine, struggle, bitterness, war, suffering, misery, not knowing how disease spread or what earthquakes or storms were all of that for 98,000 years.
Heaven watches this with complete indifference. And then 2000 years ago, thinks 'That's enough of that. It's time to intervene,' and the best way to do this would be by condemning someone to a human sacrifice somewhere in the less literate parts of the Middle East. Don't lets appeal to the Chinese, for example, where people can read and study evidence and have a civilization. Let's go to the desert and have another revelation there. This is nonsense. It can't be believed by a thinking person.

On the issue of morality i'll keep it short and sweet, Name one moral action or statement performed by a believer that could not have been done by a nonbeliever, it cannot be done; however think of a evil moral action or statement that could be made by a believer that could not have been made by a nonbeliever and you can think of some straight away.

You do realize when you talk about atheism that you are an atheist to? you're an atheist to allah, zeus, thor, poseidon and every other god that has ever being invented, atheists just go one further.

My last point is on the evil behind religion and the totalitarian celestial dictator that is your god, this is a god who tells us what we should eat or not eat, what to do on our days of (sabbath) how to punish people and for what crimes (often calling for death for the most insignificant crimes like disrespecting your parents), tells us whom we can sleep with and in what position, can punish us just for what may occur to us in our thoughts, all this and if we don't obey we must suffer an eternity in an agonising torturous hell, this is an evil teaching and when taught to children child abuse.
Debate Round No. 1


trust_jesus forfeited this round.


I demand a trial by combat!!!
Debate Round No. 2


trust_jesus forfeited this round.


I think I should be awarded points as my opponent forfeited.
Debate Round No. 3


trust_jesus forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


trust_jesus forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by hect 2 years ago
no magic, check my other debates out they might interest you.
Posted by NoMagic 2 years ago
Forfeiture, disappointing. At least that makes voting easy.
Posted by hect 2 years ago
Posted by NoMagic 2 years ago
Hect, I think we travel in the same circles, so to speak. I see a nice Hitchens argument in there. And my question wasn't really a question.
Posted by hect 2 years ago
"god's dead" or "not"; is a figure of speech in reference to the existence
Posted by NoMagic 2 years ago
If something never existed, can it be considered to be dead? I don't think so.
Posted by trust_jesus 2 years ago
Questions are derived from the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry in Round 1.
Posted by MrJosh 2 years ago
I would happily participate in this discussion, but you have about 50 questions that do not tie together into a coherent point. I suggest you whittle down your arguments to a couple of points which are supported by evidence. This website does not allow the character count to properly address all of your disparate questions, and few of us have the time.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 1 year 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: ff