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

Is God a person?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/28/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 680 times Debate No: 60998
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




The Pro position, (mine) is that God is a person as defined by an opponent of mine in another debate. To quote that particular Con-

"person: a human being, whether an adult or child"

Why is it important to establish God's personhood?

In this debate Pro is stepping away from the Christian idea of Salvation through the Savior and examining the idea of Job-

The Angels are the Sons of God. Therefore the Angels through their kinship to God are persons as defined by the Con of the debate "Archangel punk".

Here is the Angelic Dilemma-
1 The Angels hold their position in Heaven through Works of the Law.
2 The Angels hold their position in Heaven through the Grace of God.

The Angels are in Heaven because of Works
The Angels are in Heaven because of Grace
Delete Angels from Heaven

(This program was written because God does not owe the Angels anything no matter how many works they do. And the Grace of God does not apply to the Angels, they have no Savior.)

The Con position in this debate is to prove that God is not a person. (Now don't try any fancy stuff on me because I am a Christian so I'm not going to waste my time arguing about the existence of God with a bunch of loopy atheists. Also Christians will be given a hard time here in this debate because you can't be a real Christian and think that God is not a person. So basically the Program ArchPunk is meant for pure Judaism.)
Debate Round No. 1


OK Con. An agnostic is more loopy than an atheist but maybe you are someone we can work with-

You mention the Trinity. That is good. In Genesis 18:2 Abraham sees three men standing nearby.

Question number 1: Is this the Trinity that you speak of?

These three men are standing. So they must have feet because in Genesis 18:4 Abraham wants to bring a little water so they may wash and then rest under a shade tree. (These three guys here at Abrahams campsite seem to be human. But what do I know?)

Question number 2: How do spirits get their feet dirty?

In Genesis 18:5 Abraham wants to get the three men something to eat for refreshment. The three men answer in the affirmative.

Question number 3: Do you know that there are laws against wanton waste and gluttony?

In Genesis 18:6 Abraham brings Sarah into the party as a witness. She helps Abraham prepare food for the three men.

Question number 4: Do you know the rule about it taking two or three witnesses?

In Genesis 18:8 Abraham stands under the shade tree while the three men ate the food that Abraham prepared for them.

Question number 5: We will skip this question and go for the throat-

The LORD asks Abraham a question in Genesis 18:13.

Question 6: Agnostic Con, where did the LORD come from?


The issue with this Topic is that we are debating whether or not God is defined as a person. The issue is what defines God. Different people or different texts define God differently. By the look of this my adversary wants to debate if the bible defines God as a person. He is taking pro so i am arguing that God is not defend as a person. So let's jump into this

person - a human being, whether an adult or child[1]

Human being - a member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child [2]

So we are discussing whether or not God is defined as a homo sapien, or someone that is limited to person hood.

I am going to debate this in a syllogism

P1) For god to be defined as a human he would be restricted to the capabilities of a human/person
P2) God is power is limitless
C) God is not defined as a human because he is not restricted to the capabilities of a human/person

P1) Limits of person hood

People defined as human beings are limited to the capacity of their bodies. When you are older you weaker, when you are young you can't walk, and even when you are in your prime you can't lift a mountain. A Person cannot see the future, read minds, or create things at their whim. A person cannot create the universe, live in heaven, or be restructured in heaven. Our specific race and bodies are limited. Humans are also born and are required to be born to live

P2) God is limitless and a non transient being

God per the bible created the universe, always has existed, and can create matter from nothing. He is even considered to be a trinity and "spirit" which is not a person. The only time when God could be considered to be a person is his brief time on earth, but even then he sent "himself" to die in human form for our sins. Meaning he took the body of a person in order to bridge a gap for humanity sins. God in essence however is still a spirit or non transient being

Colossians 1:16 - For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities"all things were created through him and for him.

John 14:26 - But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

Genesis 1:2 - The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

Note this next verse per the bible

(Numbers 23:19 NIV) God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

In this next verse he is setting himself apart from man

(1 Corinthians 10:13 NIV) No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

This verse is saying that man is restricted and easily tempted but God will not allow this to happen. By saying that God goes outside the qualities of man, he himself cannot be a man as also stated by the verse above.

(John 4:24 NIV) God is a spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

This defines God as a spirit

C) Conclusion

As we can see the bible separates God from man and defines God as eternal and omnipotent. He is not a person or a man, he is a non transient being

Debate Round No. 2


(For an agnostic you seem to know quite a lot Con.) Who says human beings are limited?

Human beings are not limited.
God can be a human being.

God, as a free moral agent can limit Himself if He so chooses. (If God cannot limit Himself then His power is limited.) This is a circular argument but agnostics and atheists should be very comfortable with circular reasoning-

God limits Himself all the time. He claims over and over again and again that He hates sin. But then He not only creates sin, He creates the environment for sin to 'thrive and wive'. God limits Himself in that He gives place to sin. Maybe God will not always give place to sin. But right now He is giving place to sin. And more than this, God must give place to sin. Therefore-

God can limit Himself to taking on human flesh with all of its ramifications. But this does not mean that God must be human flesh forever, (even humans will not have their fleshly bodies forever, if nothing else these bodies will be reduced to dust). Just like God does not have to give place to sin forever.

And if God can be flesh then the angels are no better than their father. They also can be flesh. What sense does it make for the Bible to warn us to be kind to strangers because they might be angels if angels cannot take on human flesh? What sense does it make for Abraham to entertain the three men in the way that he did if they were just human flesh?


Ill finish this briefly

Pro asserts that God limits himself all the time, but he misunderstands what it means. God does not limit himself, he chooses not to intervene or insert himself into human affairs. Giving us free will =/= limiting himself.

Pro also asserts that Humans are not limited. I would dare pro to go pick up a house, or a punch a whole through the earth, or even try to create a particle with his brain power. If pro manages to stab himself in the heart with a knife and not die I could buy this argument but as humans are restricted to our physical bodies. God himself is not restricted to anything because he is a non transient beings, while we as humans are transients beings. For God to to be defined as a human he would have to possess human trains which he does not. Everywhere in the bible he is defined as the creator of life and the universe, a being of infinite power that has no limits to his power and that has existed and was never born.

P1) For God to be defined as a human he would have to have the traits and characteristics of a human
P2) Having the traits and Characteristics of a humans limits Gods powers and God would not exist as defined in the bible
C) God is not defined as a human
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by KayaTsuki 3 years ago
God is not a person. True we are made in the image of the Almighty. But there is a trinity. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. They're all the same. Father being God, Son being Jesus, and Holy Spirit relating to the part of God that lives and guides all those who believe in Him. Jesus was God in the flesh, and God did come down to tell Abraham that his wife would bear a child. But in Heaven, even today God is a spirit.

Stating, "is God a person," can mean different things. But in my opinion, this is what I believe and how I see the question.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 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: I felt pro didn't get on point most of the debate
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 3 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 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: I had approached the debate with the more abstract definition of personhood in mind. Defining person as a member of the species hoo sapiens, Con did a better job at arguing his position. Pro's arguments were rather... disperse.