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

Heaven/Hell cannot 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,309 times Debate No: 72206
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)




This will be my first debate after months of reading many great debaters debates such as bluesteel, 16kadams, bsh1, Envisage, Zarroette, ImaBench. Though they do not know me, I am very grateful for making their opinions available for everyone to consider.

Our debate here calls heaven and hell' existence into question. This of course causes the christian god' existence to be called into question. I will primarily be arguing the prior, as the latter is a natural conclusion.

Here is some clarification to the phrases or words that may come up.

~Free-will: The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
~The Problem of Evil: If an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent god exists, he would not allow evil to occur
~Heaven/Hell: Will be strictly referring to the christian concepts of heaven and hell as described by the bible.
~God: The tri-omni god that is spoken of in the bible.
~Good: To be desired or approved of
~Evil: Profoundly immoral and malevolent.

As the instigator of this debate I will have the full BOP to show that heaven/hell cannot exist. Con must simply refute any evidence I may put forth.
It should be noted by Con, that so long as I can show that the concepts of heaven or hell are nonsensical, this would be enough evidence for their non-existence. If a concept doesn't make sense, it seems reasonable to throw it out.

1. No forfeits, doing so will result in a concession
2. No trolling
3. My opponent accepts all of my definitions.
4. With undefined words, there will be no semantics


R1: Acceptance
R2: Present case. and rebuttals.
R3: Rebuttals
R4: Rebuttals and conclusion, no new arguments

Time to argue is 48 Hours with 5,000 character limits.


I accept , I'm playing devils advocate. Let's have some fun :)
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting imsmarterthanyou, I look forward to a stimulating first debate. If my formatting looks funny its because it was done in word. I also forgot to mention that this debate will mostly be philosophical but should we reference the bible it would be ideal to add your source at the bottom of your round.

Lets begin,

Contention 1. The Problem of Evil.
When people debate the problem of evil, both sides prematurely agree that evil does indeed exist. What their debate goes onto be about is whether or not gratuitous evil (or suffering) is permitted by god, which it supposedly is not.
The primary contention the theist makes is that good cannot exist without evil. This does makes sense, how can we logically discriminate between that which is good when there is no evil to compare it too, and visa versa.

IF this is the case, heaven and hell do not make any sense. Heaven as described in the bible is effectively eternal happiness (eternal goodness) with the lord, but how can this be if we don"t actually know what evil is while we"re there (the thought of "sinning"). How can we begin to even appreciate good without evil doings. To argue that we can be in heaven without evil, makes us circle back to the problem of evil and why god couldn"t just make a world without evil. The clear cut answer to these questions though is that no such place exists, it cannot logically exist in the first place. God cannot make a square with three points, similarly, god cannot make free will without having two points, good and evil (arguably three for neutrality.

IF this is not the case, the problem of evil follows through invalidating god. If there is no god, it is safe to say heaven/hell cannot exist.

Contention 2. Morality is subjective
Perhaps an even more daunting question is what would heaven be like? It is essentially argued by the bible that it is eternal happiness with the lord, but how can one even define what "happiness" is. Most would agree that, that which is good brings you happiness, but what is good is entirely dependent on our subjective situations we were born/raised into. There are people who genuinely believe that rape or killing is good, and they believe it just like any of us believe helping the less fortunate is good. If we all share the same heaven/hell [1], then heaven ought to be whatever it is we consider to be good. Conversely, hell ought to be the exact opposite of what we find is good, so as to actually serve as a punishment. A masochist wouldn't mind a thousand lashes in hell, while an aurophobic person wouldn"t like the new gold roads god used in heaven [2]. Clearly this is not the case. Both of these kinds of people get sent both to hell or heaven depending if they have repented, regardless of what they think is good or evil.

Contention 3. It"s Incomplete
Looking at what most of us believe is good, the average person would still not want to go to heaven. Many families have had people who do not believe in god, this automatically disqualifies them from heaven. Additionally we have friends or family who follow different religions who also lead wholesome lives but are still sent to "the eternal fire" for repenting or worshipping the wrong god (even accidentally).
There are also parents that have had a child die at birth or a very young age, assuming we maintain our individuality [3], these babies would simply be babies for all eternity, depriving the mother of the great happiness of raising a child (or its conclusion at least). I would find it to be a horror, that the baby will be eternally unconscious, neigh, I find this to be a worse punishment then hell itself, imagine the mothers thoughts about this. For the bible to actually call this heaven is absurd.

Contention 4. Individuality and Free-will.
As I previously mentioned, the bible eludes to the fact that we will still have our individuality.
To this I say poppycock.
Our individuality is created entirely of both the good and evil choices we have made through life utilizing our free-will. Speaking strictly from a philosophical stand point, how can we still be us if we were to take away the evil. How can we still act like "us" if the option to do evil is taken away? I think people would agree that we love the things we hate about some people. If someone were to suddenly start behaving only good(in heaven) or suddenly start behaving only evil (in hell), we would hardly recognize them as the same person.
One could argue that we have "free-will" and just have divine knowledge to know not to do evil things, but this once again leads us back to contention one and why god couldnt just give us this knowledge in the first place.

With this reasoning the resolution is affirmed.

[3] [Note: W.A. Criswell and Paige Patterson, Heaven, Tyndale House Publishers, 1991, pp. 33-3


Disclaimer: I am an atheist, I am merely playing devils advocate…

I myself do not hold a belief in the afterlife. However it cannot truthfully be said with certainty that Heaven or Hell does not exist. Likewise with the existence of a deistic God.

The resolution is a simple one.

“Heaven/Hell cannot exist.”

Voters please draw your attention to several things.

Please acknowledge…

· The resolution does not mention the likelihood of Heaven or Hell.

· This debate is exclusively about the POSSIBLITY of Hell or Heaven to exist…

I simply must demonstrate that Heaven/Hell have a POSSIBILITY of existence.


P1. An omnipotent God can do anything.

P2. An omnipotent God can make "Heaven/ Hell”


Heaven/Hell can exist. That is they have a chance of existing , regardless of how tremendously small that chance may be , regardless that we have no reason to believe that they do. Possibility exists.

Debate Round No. 2


I must be honest, I am rather disappointed. Either Con has not read my round one, where I clearly and specify say I'm talking about the christian god and the christian concept of heaven/hell, or he is attempting move the goal posts. The bible sets up the parameters for this debate all on its own. We are not talking about some generic heaven, or hell, or some individuals concept of them (or of god) the definitions are very specific because the bible is very specific about them. It is painfully obvious that a generic heaven/hell with an extremely ambiguous definition may possibility exist, but we aren't debating heaven/hell in general, its the christian concept of heaven/hell I'm refuting

Perhaps the absolute biggest misrepresentation of what I am arguing for is here where he states

"The resolution does not mention the likelihood of Heaven or Hell.

" This debate is exclusively about the POSSIBLITY of Hell or Heaven to exist""

This could not be further from the truth. Likelihood =/= Possible, Likelihood = Probable. Before we can even begin to consider how probable something is, we must first establish it is possible to begin with. My entire purpose of creating this debate is because of the latter. It cannot exist, it cannot begin to even logically exist as defined by the bible. I present 4 valid contentions to prove this, but they go completely untouched.

Lastly, if Con is using the definition of god as "An omnipotent being", then he has violated my rules (3), and should concede this debate. If he really meant the christian god can do anything then he accepts that god is able to sin and bypass logical fallacies (like creating a square with 3 points). This is not what the christian god can do.

I had feared this may be the result of debating someone who's playing devils advocate in a philosophical debate, but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.

If Con was using my definition while making his argument than...
All arguments extended.

If not.

Vote Pro.


Rebuttals...But first a reminder as Pro explicitly states in his second round... about what excatly the debate is about.

PRO- "its the christian concept of heaven/hell I'm refuting"

Contentions 1-4 are absolutely irrelevant.

Given the christian definition of god which Pro so graciously provided himself...

"~God: The tri-omni god that is spoken of in the bible."
Thus this God has the quality of Omni-Potence.

Omni-Potence means being able to do absolutely anything...

Using Cons own words. Omni-Potence means God can..."bypass logical fallacies" whatever they may be. Hence within the christian concept of Heaven/Hell.....God can do anything... This means Heaven/Hell CAN exist. If he wants to or not , if it exists or not , does not matter. All that matters is that Heaven/ Hell CAN exist.

I repeat myself.

P1. The capabliity to do absolutely anything(Omni-Potence) , within it includes create heaven or hell.


The christian concept of heaven/hell is sound because within it includes an Omni-potent god.
Debate Round No. 3



Con has reduced this debate to a matter of semantics about the meaning of the word "omnipotent" once again violating my rules stated in round 1 (this time its rule #4). For this reason alone, you as the reader should vote Pro. Not to mention he did not stick to my definition of god (rule #3).

At this point I will humor Con simply because I enjoy pointing the obvious out. Also, It may grant some clarity to the reader why I have set this debate up the way I did.

-Paradoxes Invalidate God-
Con believes that omnipotence entails the ability to transcend logic. Nearly every debate about the existence of god brings this up at some point, and absolutely 0 theist agree that this is true. This is probably why playing devils advocate was not a good idea for Con, since at this point he is no longer playing one.

1.Since Con believes that omnipotence means god can sin (not supported by the bible), then god is not omnibenevolent (Therefore he is not arguing with my definition of god, see rule 3).

2.Since Con believes that omnipotence means he can transcend logic, that means god would be able to make "the letter three smell like the flavor yellow". I would like to ask you, the reader, does this really make sense, can this actually be possible?

3.I could posit the age old question of "Can God make a rock so big He can't pick it up?" to prove Con is wrong about god being capable of transcending logic (which every theist would agree with me on).
If He is omnipotent, then He can create a rock so big that He can't pick it up. If He cannot make a rock like this, then He is not omnipotent. If He can make a rock so big He can't pick it up, then He isn't omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore God is not omnipotent. Therefore God does not exist. Thus, if god does not exist. It naturally follows that there is no christian god, and that there is no christian heaven/hell.

-Why the debate was setup this way-
I believe that the christian god could not transcend logic. It is made abundantly clear by all theists that this is indeed the case. My whole case assumes that god cannot transcend logic, this is almost entirely what I depend on to prove heaven/hell cannot exist. I wanted a debate with someone will also worked off the assumption that omnipotence doesn't entail transcending logic.
If god could transcend logic, he could have just made us all good people all of the time without evil and the world would be a perfect place. This is obviously not the case, I actually find this to be proof that god cannot transcend the logical.

Con has chosen to make this entire debate about semantics.
Con has broken rules #3 and #4.
Con makes for a disappointing devils advocate, since the devil he represents would never advocate what he's saying.

I don't like the idea of telling people to vote for me, because I shouldn't need to tell them too If I had put up a good enough argument.
But Con has clearly violated the rules of this debate and this should be reflected by the voting.

Vote Pro.


imsmarterthanyou98 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
>Reported vote: TF2PRO // Moderation action: Removed<

6 points to Con, 1 point to Pro (conduct). {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better conduct, Con FF. Better grammer}

[*Reason for Removal*] No attempt made to explain arguments and sources. Insufficient explanation for grammar (you can"t just repeat the point category). TF2PRO"s voting history is almost entirely votes in favor of imsmarterthanyou98, so bias in favor of this user is also suspected.
Posted by imsmarterthanyou98 3 years ago
Crap. I didn't FF the last round I had it typed out and everything. I just didn't click send in time...I got home late and stuff.. Lmaoo ;p Oh well.
Posted by ClashnBoom 3 years ago
4 points top pro cause con violated rules #1 #3 and #4.
Posted by G-g-ghost 3 years ago
I enjoyed the logic of pros debate thank you for sharing your thoughts :)
Posted by Kozu 3 years ago
Probably been lurking for around 6 months now. I also learned how not to debate from izbo.

@Smarter, take your time, I know I will. I did type a bit of my first round ahead of time though.
Posted by imsmarterthanyou98 3 years ago
Hey, i've been busy with stuff , haven't had the time i would like to take many debates.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wow, how long have you been lurking? You
Posted by Kozu 3 years ago
You could always play devils advocate, Circle_craft
Posted by Kozu 3 years ago
Thanks Wylted, I could have kept going with that list, you were only like two or three names away from being added but I had to draw a line somewhere. I have great respect for you taking on unsavory topics where most would label you "fucked" for instigating such a resolution, a good example "The United States Federal Government should legalize child porn Wylted vs Bluesteel and Mikal".

If any of the top debaters here had to challenge me, I would actually prefer it to be you. and I mean that in the most flattering way.
Posted by Circle_Craft 3 years ago
Huh. I would accept this, except I agree with you :D
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: As per the rules, any ff equals a concession.