The Instigator
Pro (for)
35 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
14 Points

It is more reasonable to believe in God rather than not to

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 7 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 3/20/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,503 times Debate No: 72066
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (146)
Votes (7)




After my research on the origin of religion and considering how God reveals his power in his word the Bible, I have come to the conclusion that it is more reasonable to believe in God rather than not to. First round is acceptance only. In the second round we will each have 10,000 characters to write our claim along with arguments, counter-arguments, and a conclusion. Those who vote please explain your decision with detail. Thank you.


I accept this debate.

God -
a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

Atheist -
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Debate Round No. 1


Regarding the religions currently in existence, there is no lack of information concerning their founders, their holy books, etc. But if we go back far enough, we will eventually face the question, how did religion begin? Evidently, to find the answer we must look beyond the borders of the individual religions.

The study of the origin of religion is a relatively new field. For centuries, people accepted the religious traditions they were born in and were satisfied with the explanations passed down by their forefathers. In fact, with limited means of travel and communication, few people were even aware of the existence of other religious systems. Things changed in the 19th century.

The theory of evolution was widely accepted by intellectuals. That, along with the beginning of scientific inquiry, resulted in the questioning of established systems, including religion. Scholars tried to apply methods of psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc. with hope of discovering a clue concerning how or why religion began. The result was a burst of theories with each investigator contradicting the other; each trying to outdo the other in daring and originality. Many of these theories have been forgotten and none of them has really stood out as more believable than the others because, simply, there was never any historical proof that these theories were true. They were merely products of some investigator’s imagination, soon to be replaced by the next one that came along.

After many years of struggle, many have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to reach the origins of religion. Concerning the historians’ efforts, nonetheless, notice the observation made by the book World Religions - From Ancient History to the Present:

In the past too many theorists were concerned not simply to describe or explain religion but to explain it away, feeling that if the early forms were shown to be based upon illusions then the later and higher religions might be undermined.

Here lies the clue as to why “scientific” investigators of the origin of religion have not come up with any plausible explanations. Logic tells us that a correct conclusion can only be deduced from a correct premise. Starting with a faulty premise, it is unlikely that you reach a sound conclusion.

Voltaire stated, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.” This is what the atheists historians argue, that man has invented God. Since their many theories have failed, rather than laboring fruitlessly in the same route, let’s be open-minded. The reasonable and scientific thing to do is reexamine the premise upon which these investigations are based.

Consider what the book, Story of the World’s Worship says about language:

Those who have studied the languages of the world have something to say, and it is this: All languages can be grouped into families or classes of speech, and all these families are seen to have started from one common source.

In other words, the languages of the world did not originate separately and individually. Evidence shows they, “started from one common source.” If this is true from something as personal and unique as human language, wouldn’t it be reasonable to think that man’s ideas about God and religion should also have started from one common source? After all, religion is connected to thinking, and thinking is connected to man’s ability to use language. I do not propose all religions grew out of one religion. But, the concepts and ideas should be traceable to a common origin of religious ideas. Is there evidence to support this? Let’s get the answer the same way linguistics experts got the answer about the origin of language.

An etymologist can trace languages back to their source placing them side by side, noting their similarities. Likewise, we can place religions side by side, examine their doctrines, rituals, ceremonies, etc. and see if these religions have anything I common. If so, let’s see where this leads us.

When comparing religions, we find beliefs that are almost universal among them. Consider the legend of man’s fall from divine grace due to his illicit attempt to attain immortality, the need to offer sacrifices to atone for sin, the search for a tree of life or fountain of youth, gods and demigods who lived among humans and produced superhuman offspring, and a catastrophic flood that devastated almost all of humanity.

What can we conclude from this? Notice that those who believed in these legends and myths lived far away from each other geographically. Their traditions and culture were different. And yet, when it comes to religion, they believed in very similar ideas. The obvious question is, Why?

It is as if there was a common source each religion each religion drew its beliefs from. Some more, some less. Logically, these similarities in basic concepts are compelling evidence that they did not begin each in its own independent way. The ideas must have come from a common origin. But what was that origin?

When you put all the common elements perceptible among all legends about the beginning of man, a clear picture begins to surface. God created the first man and woman. They were placed in a paradise. Soon they became rebellious, and that rebellion resulted in the loss of the perfect paradise, only to be replaced by pain, suffering, and death. Eventually mankind became so bad that God punished them with a great flood that destroyed all but one family. As the family got bigger, some of the offspring started building a massive tower in defiance of God. God frustrated their plans by confusing their language and dispersing them to the far corners of the Earth. This image is not merely the result of someone’s mental exercise. It is the picture presented in the Bible in the first eleven chapters of Genesis.

The Bible is a book of accurate history. One of many examples of a person from the Bible whose existence was questioned by some scholars was Pontius Pilate, a governor who ruled in Jesus’ day. He is mentioned at Luke chapter 3, verse 1. Then, approximately 50 years ago, a stone was found in the Middle East with his name plainly imprinted on it.

The Bible also predicted important historical events centuries before they happened. Here is one example:

Daniel 8:7-8: 7And I saw it coming into close touch with the ram, and it began showing bitterness toward it, and it proceeded to strike down the ram and to break its two horns, and there proved to be no power in the ram to stand before it. So it threw it to the earth and trampled it down, and the ram proved to have no deliverer out of its hand. 8 And the male of the goats, for its part, put on great airs to an extreme; but as soon as it became mighty, the great horn was broken, and there proceeded to come up conspicuously four instead of it, toward the four winds of the heavens.

Daniel 8:20-22: 20The ram that you saw possessing the two horns [stands for] the kings of Me′di·a and Persia. 21 And the hairy he-goat [stands for] the king of Greece; and as for the great horn that was between its eyes, it [stands for] the first king. 22 And that one having been broken, so that there were four that finally stood up instead of it, there are four kingdoms from [his] nation that will stand up, but not with his power.

These verses predicted the fall of Persia by Alexander Magnus, and that four of his generals would take his place after his death over 200 years before these things happened!

With its historical accuracy and demonstration of God’s power through fulfilled prophecies, is there really valid reasons to reject the Bible? Not at all. In fact, let’s take a look at other things that make the Bible extraordinary.

The Bible is internally consistent.

The first book of the Bible tells us how mankind’s problems began. The last book shows that the whole earth will become a paradise, or garden. All the harmonious material in the Bible covers thousands of years of history and has to do, in some way, with the unfolding of God’s purpose. This is extraordinary, when you consider the Bible was written in three different continents, three different languages, with over 40 writers, in a period of 1,610 years.

The Bible has been most attacked book in history, and now is most distributed.

In 168 B.C.E., Syrian King Antiochus IV tried to seek out the inspired books of the Law to burn them. Roman Emperor Diocletian’s decree to demolish the meeting places of the Christians and to burn their Scriptures was issued in 303 C.E. The destruction continued for a decade. After the 11th century, popes led the efforts to suppress the spread of Bible knowledge, opposing the translation of the Scriptures into languages of the common people. It is extraordinary that despite these attacks from Satan, we still have the Bible today. It’s even more extraordinary that there is no other ancient book as well attested as the Bible with tousands of ancient manuscripts in the original language showing the Bible has been the same in almost 2,000 years and that it is the most distributed book in the world available to people all around the globe in over 500 languages!


With all this evidence and demonstration of God's power in his word the Bible, only someone devoid of rational thinking would live his life as if God didn’t exist when such life has everything to gain and nothing to lose.

Surely AtheistPerson will have arguments against the Bible which I will gladly counter in a new debate, since the character limit will not allow me to do it here. But, now you know why I believe in God. Thank you for accepting this debate, and I eagerly await your response, AtheistPerson.



This argument will be about Christianity, as that is the thing you have used in your debate area the whole time. A better name for the debate should have been about Christianity instead of just "God."
Also, I am not able to use fonts, sizes, or other properties to my text unlike other people who have easily been able to do so.


The concept of gods and creators have existed for nearly 10,000 years with the hunter-gatherers and nomads. During those historic times, we should all understand that there were no scientific explanations for the reasons of events occuring. Instead, myths and folktale were created to replace the explanations that were unknown at the time. Now, in the past 200 years we have full facts and logical evidence as to why hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and rain happen. Science has also explained things beyond our grasp such as well supported theories about the universe and our origins.
Theory - a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
Today, we have explanations as to why us humans are here living here on this very planet that perfectly supports life. The reasons that we are here are not anything like chance or probability, but cause and effect. This also relates to the Rain Puddle Concept. Let's give the puddle a consciousness and a way of speaking. The puddle would look at its surroundings and say, "Wow, this hole perfectly supports me, don't you think it must have been created just for me? In reality, we know the puddle was made to fit the whole not the puddle. This goes back to the cause and effect. Because there is a hole in the ground, the small hole will fill up once it rains.
Here's how it works with the earth: Because the sun was formed, the sun gives off potential for planets to form. Our atmosphere was formed and contains oxygen, and has a thick enough barrier to keep harmful radiation from the sun. This gives off another chance for life to start. There are many other factors that are in the area that don't necessarily need a creator to make.
This simply debunks the arguement: "What are the chances of life to form?"

Now let's move on to the Big Bang Theory, which will definitely stump my opponent. The Big Bang was a collection of sub-atomic particles almost infinetely small, but held all the matter and energy in the universe today. At around the time of the Big Bang, the temperature was over 100 nonillion Kelvin (18,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Fahrenheit pretty hot, huh?).
Now, this/these particles eventually collapsed on eachother becoming larger than the sun in nearly seconds.
Let's think about this with God:
Because the Laws of Motion (Isaac Newton) are proven today, I will use these.
Second Law: An object in motion [or rest] will stay in motion [or rest] unless acted upon by another force. What was the force that helped God to have potential in creating over 1e 1,000 tons of weight? If he had enough power to create the whole universe why would he make Earth only take up
0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003 % of the total universe?
God is also omnipotent, omnipresent and omni-everything. He can do anything, is everywhere at once and has been around since forever. This creates a very strong paradox. If he has been around forever, why hasn't he created us "a forever ago?"

The Concept of Belief

Believers of God rely on faith, fear, and hope rather than logical, rational, and persistent evidence of science. The philosophy for many theists is simply God. We see that many belivers in hell threaten people who "sin" with hell. I've experienced this many times.
Believers also claim that their moral system is the most just and how impossible it is to be a good person without it, however they forget that Christianity is nowhere near one of the first religions at all. Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. developed a firm set of moral values and justices that are actually tens times more moral than the Christian "code of conduct." If you take a look at the Ten Commandments many of them are very irrelevant with being a moral person in the sense of raping, murder, theft, etc. "Thou shalt not murder" is the seventh commandment listed upon the commandments but there are hundreds of exceptions.
Anyone who sins and does not repent is to be put down.
Non-Christians, gays, adulterers, lusters, rape victims, blasphemers, children who insult bald priests, etc. amongst the few that are killed.

The Bible

The Bible is a horrible book full of rape, torture, murder, slavery, and unjustified punishments for something that would not even be thought of as a crime in today's society. Along with that, it is full of fairy tails and contradictories.

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
- - - - - - - - - - -
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 ... I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
- - - - - - - - - - -
These are just minor contradictions that the Bible possesses.

Noah's Ark (LOL)

You don't even want to get me started about Noah's Ark. If you understood first grade science, you would understand this is stupid. That's all I have to say about this subject.

Back to My Claim
Using these evidences and logical points, it should be easy to understand that Christianity and all other belief systems involving and intelligent or divine creator are incorrect
Debate Round No. 2
146 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Philocat 1 year ago

1. Many religious people agree with evolution.

2. Few religious people take the Genesis creation story to be literally, empirically true. Most interpret it figuratively.
Posted by FantumHeist 1 year ago
Religious people all ways ask people who believe Evolution over a superior power why did monkeys and ape's not evolve i have a single question in response why don't snakes and other serpents talk?
Posted by Gabe1e 1 year ago
Can't right now, got two other debates going on.
Posted by Bible2000 1 year ago
Gabe1e, feel free to start a debate with all those arguments and I will counter them.
Posted by Gabe1e 1 year ago
Please name the true history behind the Bible. And I am not "attacking" you. This is I'm arguing with you like people do on this site.
Posted by Gabe1e 1 year ago
Because if you believe the Bible is true and "holy" these questions really raise an eyebrow, because they are all included in the Bible, yet people still worship it. Why do most African-Americans believe in God as their holy savior if he believes in slavery? It makes no sense to me. Why do women do the same if God is a sexist?
Posted by jsgolfer 1 year ago
@Gabe1e I didn't mention any of that. I'm talking about the historical study and significance of the Bible as a historical text. Why are you just attacking me for no reason? Read my post again.
Posted by Gabe1e 1 year ago

1. Try praying. It won't work.
2. Noah's ark is probably the most unrealistic story I've ever read in my life.
3. Many things still alive in this world are older than 6,000 years old or even 4,000 if you want to go earlier.
4. The story behind "Jesus Christ" is very unrealistic. There cannot be a man who resurrects and walks on water.
5. Why hasn't God or Jesus shown their faces today?
6. Where is scientific evidence that God exists?
7. If Christianity is so terrific, why did it promote slavery?
8. Where's heaven? Where's hell?
9. ... If God is so terrific... why does he want to mass murder teenagers?
"Deut 21:18-21:
If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard." Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid."
10. Why does god want to kill all homosexuals...? "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them."
11. The Bible's author is not "all-knowing."
12. Why is God a sexist...?
Posted by jsgolfer 1 year ago
@Gabe1e There is a LOT of true history in the Bible. Many events in the Bible are not debated at all and are known by historians to be 100% true. While some of it is very controversial and has been debated heavily for quite some time, the Bible, especially the new testament, is still a fantastic historical resource for scholars, especially since we have so much of it. We have more records of the Bible than any other ancient text.
Posted by Bible2000 1 year ago
Understand that my arguments would have been very flawed had I not mentioned the Bible. Think about it, I claim there is evidence that all religions have a common source, a truth revealed by God but changed over time by religions, but God doesn't bother preserve this truth? But He did preserve it in his word the Bible, the extraordinary book where he reveals his power to us through the fulfilled prophecies, science discovered at a later date, and the many other things that make the Bible extraordinary.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by ColeTrain 1 year ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: In regards to this debate, we find quite intriguing arguments. First and foremost, we find a strong case provided by Pro, with little plausible refutations by Con. Many may disagree, but understanding Biblical principle and just minor knowledge of the Bible itself lends understanding as to why Con's arguments are null and void. Secondly, we see evidence (though disputably from the Bible) from Pro, while no evidence is supplied by Con. That fact alone gives Pro more credibility and thus gives him/her the win. Criticisms aside, great job to both debaters, a comprehensive job well done.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 1 year ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's sources came from the Bible... Pro started off strong, but then he leaped over to stories from the Bible. That lost him the debate, especially when Con actually provided solid evidence. Con really should explain Noah's Ark in a more extent, however.
Vote Placed by Sidewalker 1 year ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: I give the vote to pro but it was certainly close, it really came down to who had the worse argument as neither argument was particularly strong. I had to read the debate twice as the first time I finished Pro's argument thinking that was pretty weak, he's goig to get creamed here, and then read Con's weak argument and had to reset expectations and then re-read the debate. In the end I think Pro presented a more logical argument for why he finds belief to be "reasonable", con seemed more inclined to just project his own animosity onto the debate rather than make a logical argument. Con needed to undermine the idea that belief is reasonable to win, he didn't do so, instead he attempted to present science and faith as opposed and did a very poor job of it. Pro presented why he believes and explained why that is reasonable, while Con simply projected his own feelings onto the subject, and it's clear that such feelings are not a matter of reason.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Most of Pro's sources came from the Bible. This is highly controversial, as the Bible is't entirely reliable. Pro claimed that the Bible is internally consistent, but provided no evidence of it.
Vote Placed by Skepticalone 1 year ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Both debaters had issues with tying their conclusions to their premises. Pro did a lot of set-up, but I was disappointed to seem him make a leap from common stories to God. There are other more plausible explanations. However, I found the prophecy from Daniel to be one crucial point Con needed to address (which he did not). As far as Con's case goes, he attacked one specific interpretation of Christianity instead of the concept of god (as he defined it).
Vote Placed by jsgolfer 1 year ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a much more developed and full argument. Clearly showed much more knowledge of the subject and much more research of modern alternative views differing from his own. Con attacked a specific position by use of a large amount of very biased and for the most part, full of lies and generalizations. Con's arguments also failed for the most part to answer the question at hand at all.