The Instigator
Con (against)
11 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
12 Points

On the Existence of the Judeo-Christian God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,913 times Debate No: 11457
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (4)




The Judeo-Christian God does not exist. This is shown in a number of ways, including:

Intercessory prayer does not work

Ne evidence in Jesus's existence

No historical evidence for biblical events (miraculous ones)

Scientific inaccuracy of the bible

Literary analysis of the bible

Differences in belief between religions/creation of "sects"

Differences in biblical interpretation

Inconsistency in religious "experiences"

I am aware that I have not expounded on any of these points. I would challenge my opponent to offer his own evidence on why God does exist, especially if it contradicts any of the points I make. If he/she wants more detail on any of these points, just ask.


I thank my opponent for creating this debate.
I would like to acknowledge that I am Christian, although I will take no offense in any insult towards my religion.

However, I must point out that none of his points are really backed up with evidence. So how would I know what Inconsistency in religious "experiences" mean? I need some examples, evidence, whatever.

However, I can prove that there is historical evidence for biblical events. Was Noah's flood miraculous enough? In an ancient myth of Babylon. The dimensions of the ship was much the same, and Utnapishtim was clearly similar to Noah. The two stories can be compared to a great depth. In Islam, there is a great flood story even more similar. How could Judaism get to Babylon? The chances are neigh. There are really many stories of this, including
Sumerian, Babylonian (Epic of Gilgamesh), Jewish, Islamic, Asia-Pacific, China, Lao (Indochina), India, Andaman Islands, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Greek, Ogyges, Deucalion, Dardanus, From The Theogony of Apollodorus, Germanic, Irish,Finnish, Aztec, Caddo, Hopi, Inca, Maya, Mapuche, Menominee, Mi'kmaq, Polynesian.
Is that enough for you?

As for differences in biblical interpretation, there really is no point to addressing this. The Bible was created 2000 years ago. There must be more than one way to interpret it. You find slightly different distortions in every religion.

The rest of my opponent's speech is really opinionated, and I need examples before I refute this.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for accepting - I really like this debate topic. In my rebuttal, I will first provide brief evidence for each of the points I asserted earlier and follow this by refuting the "flood" myth you referenced.

Intercessory prayer does not work:
There have been a number of studies of intercessory prayer, but the largest and most comprehensive one was completed just recently. The results of the study can be found in this news release:
I have access to the technical paper since my school has a subscription to the journal, but cannot link to it since that would violate copyright laws. It differs in no significant way from the news release. The results show that heart bypass patients that were prayed for had the same complications that those who did not. In addition to this study, amputees that are prayed for never spontaneously regrow limbs. This may seem ridiculous, but according to the bible, it should work.

No Evidence for Jesus:
We have no evidence for Jesus's existence outside of scripture. What we do have is numerous Roman records from around the time he would have been stirring up trouble, an there is no mention of him. In addition, if he had attracted as much attention as the bible claims, some historian on the era would have written about him, which we do not find.

No Evidence of Miracles:
Same as above, basically.

Scientific Inaccuracies of the Bible:
The bible gets everything wrong, from Genesis forward. The world is NOT 6000 years old (Genesis, Exodus, Kings, Ezekiel, Mark), which is what genealogies add up to. Animals, plants, and so forth were NOT created in there present forms (Genesis), as the bible says. Disease is NOT caused by evil spirits, but by germs. The sun is the center of the solar system, NOT the earth, as the bible claims. And so on.

Literary Analysis of the Bible:
The bible is not one cohesive document, but many scripts, written by different men and has been revised many times over the years. Also, it would have originally been written in Hebrew, and translated to Greek, Latin, and finally English, even in a perfect world. As it is, it was probably translated many more times. In each translation, meanings are lost and passages are mistranslated. this is NOT the same book supposedly written by God some 2000 years ago. in addition, the Gospels were NOT written by the apostles that they are attributed to. Mark, the first Gospel that was written, has been dated to around AD 65, and the rest are written between then and AD 110 or so. No one, especially in the ancient world, lives that long. In addition, these books are quoted anonymously until about AD 180, when the names suddenly appear.

Differences in Beliefs (combined two points):
Different sects of Christianity interpret passages of the bible very differently. If this were the divine word of God, one would expect interpretations to match. This causes the creations of sects, much like Martin Luther's split from the Catholic Church in 1517. We can see more recent splits, like the Mormons in the 1800's and even fringe "cults" today. Some die out, others do not. If the bible were divine word, we would expect to be getting fewer groups, as we found that one interpretation was the correct one. Instead we are getting more splits.

Inconsistency of Religious Experiences:
If there were one supreme god, religious experiences in all pars of the world would have a single source. They should all be similar, like everyone seeing angels or a sea of fire in hell or whatnot. Instead, what we get is people seeing their own version of heaven or hell or nirvana or what have you, and for some reason these visions always match the individual's beliefs. You never hear of a story where a Christian gets in a car crash, sees the ancestor spirits, and converts to Shintoism. This argues that people create their own religious experiences, rather than them coming from an external source. I should also mention that "firsthand" accounts and "eyewitness" testimony are unreliable under the best of circumstances. Add religion to the mix and it just goes downhill.

That summarizes the points I listed earlier. Now on to the flood myth.

Yes, many cultures have flood myths. Many cultures also have myths about lightening striking their enemies, and plagues, and superhumans (read: humans who do impossible things, like Hercules, Jesus, Lugh, and so on.) and everything else. This is because all of these cultures did not have the knowledge to explain these things rationally, and so made up stories to satisfy their curiosity.

But let's take the flood myth specifically for a moment. Many of these early cultures lived on rivers, because that is where the fertile land is and the river makes for easy transportation of goods and another source of food (fish). Rivers flood. It is a fact of life. But because the people living by the rivers could not explain WHY the rivers flooded, the gods (or God) was usually the cause.

Finally, let's take a look at the scientific evidence for a world-wide flood - none. Geologists are able to tell when an area of land was underwater by looking at the layers of rock and soil. They also can date these layers to find out when it happened. If there was a worldwide flood some 4000 years ago, it should be easy to look at the sediment layers and find a layer where all of the land had been underwater, dated about 4000 years ago.

Guess what - we don't find it.

This would be the most obvious evidence, but there is others. We have Egyptian hieroglyphs that go that far back, as well as Sumerian cuneiform writing. While they do report floods of biblical proportions (pun) the dates given are different, as are the gods they attribute it to. In addition, these writings are MORE than 4000 years old. According to the bible, all of thesis people were killed during the Flood. This directly contradicts reality, as these civilizations continued to leave records throughout the Flood period and after.

In conclusion, the flood myth is an extremely poor example of biblical evidence to use, as I have shown above.

I look forward to your next entry!


First off, I would like to apologize for the delay of this response. I've been having a 2-day debate tournament.

I would like to begin by refuting my opponents points. When we (Christians) pray to God, we do not ask for any more than forgiveness for the past sins we have committed. After all, we believe that we were the ones that brought these sicknesses in the first place. God will answer you, maybe not on Earth, but in heaven. Second of all, the study that he brought up stated that amputees didn't spontaneously regrow limbs. This is crazy. Our God can do miraculous things, but he can choose to do it at his own pace.

No evidence for Jesus. I would like to start off pointing out the fact that my opponent has not given us any reference to back up his argument. Secondly, how come the major date form, all over the world is AD, and BC, instead of anything else? The answer is that Jesus made that big of an impact. This is the same as the next point.

Genesis did not give a date from which the Lord created the world. For the first few chapters, it could have extended from 1,000 years to 50000 years, who knows? One day for God might be several thousand years for humanity. . Disease may have been caused by germs, but the people who wrote the Scripture is clearly human, not God. They might have gotten the overall content from God, but one or two sentences that reflect their culture is not at all unusual.

For his Literary Analysis of the Bible, he does not give us any source in which we can accept it. When he said that the modern day bible was not the same book as the one written by God 2000 years ago, that is a complete opinion. The rest of the Gospels were written by people that heard the story passed on orally. Mark did not write all four of the bible.

Differences in beliefs. It has been what, 2000 years since the Bible was first written. The people who understood or wrote them are now long gne. After 2000 years, there has to be some sort of understanding. This understanding has to differ amongst peoples. But for each split, the basic principles, the basic ideas, they are all the same.

There is a major flaw in his next argument, Inconsistency of Religious experiences. First of all, he said that "you never hear of a story where a Christian gts in a car crash, sees the ancestor spirits, and coverts to Shitoism." This idea itself is ridiculous. THe guy is dead already! He also mentioned that the "firsthand" accounts are unreliable. That is a completle opinion.

As for his rebuttal of the flood myth, why are their seashells found on top of the highest mountains? In the deserts, millions of miles away from the sea? There is definite proof thatthere was a flood, but under the cultural hand, the story was greatly exaggerated. "Descriptions of a killer global flood that inundated the inhabited lands of the world turn up everywhere amongst the myths of antiquity. In many cases these myths clearly hint that the deluge swept away an advanced civilization that had somehow angered the gods, sparing 'none but the unlettered and the uncultured' and obliging the survivors to 'begin again like children in complete ignorance of what happened . . . in early times.' . . . The academic consensus today, and for a century, has been that that the myths are either pure fantasy or the fantastic elaboration of local and limited deluges -- caused for example by rivers overflowing, or tidal waves."
Debate Round No. 2


Rationalist forfeited this round.


My opponent forfeited. I hope to debate him sometime else and I wish him luck in his debating career. Vote PRO
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
What goes around comes around, I guess.
Posted by debateboy 7 years ago
you guyz commonly state up the Himilayas. Any else?
Posted by Rationalist 7 years ago
Apologies about not posting in the 3rd round. I was at the National ACS Conference and did not have a free moment to write anything. I will probably restart this debate at some point, but wanted to touch on the Himalaya argument presented in the comment section. The area where the Himalayas are today was underwater during much of Earth's history. ( If you follow the diagrams on the right of this page, you can see the movement of the Indian Plate across what will become the Indian Ocean. When the Indian sub-continent collided with the Asian Continent, the ocean floor was elevated to the top of a mountain range (the Himalayas). This is why seashells are commonly found in these mountains.
Posted by Demosthenes 8 years ago
Oh boy, another debate with no reasonable end because no one can prove God doesn't exist and no one can prove God does exist.

You'd think people would figure this out by now.
Posted by Spaztoid 8 years ago
Hmm, well this has been an odd debate. Both sides have a a few logical errors, but most of all there has been very little presented in the way of actual evidence.
I would like to make one point. Demauscian brought it up,
"he answer is that as tectonic plates move and collide earth is thrust into the sky (over a long period of time). E.G. The Himalayas were cause from when India collided with Asia, so the sea floor that existed between the two was pushed into the sky."
It interests me why Con's explanation was accepted when Pro's was rejected. At least to me, both have supported their answers with fairly logical reasoning's, so why is it that when Con counters Pro's position, his ideas are more readily acceptable?
Posted by Demauscian 8 years ago
it was said, "why are their seashells found on top of the highest mountains? In the deserts, millions of miles away from the sea? "

he answer is that as tectonic plates move and collide earth is thrust into the sky (over a long period of time). E.G. The Himalayas were cause from when India collided with Asia, so the sea floor that existed between the two was pushed into the sky.
Posted by Kinesis 8 years ago
'It is logically impossible to prove something does not exist'

Is there, in the universe, an envelope containing a drawing of a square-circle?
Posted by Rodriguez47 8 years ago
There are roughly 4,000 religions on this planet. They all say you're going to hell and vise-versa. Who's right?
Posted by Rationalist 8 years ago
It is logically impossible to prove something does not exist. I cannot prove that there is not diamond the size of a fridge in my backyard, or that faeries do not exist. However, I believe we can classify the J-C god with faeries and fridge sized diamonds - unlikely to the point of being impossible.
Posted by Kinesis 8 years ago
@pop: why should he? He didn't say he can definitively prove that the Judeo-Christian God doesn't exist, he just said he could show that it doesn't.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by XStrikeX 6 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Vote Placed by Atheism 7 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Vote Placed by debateboy 7 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 Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 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 Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70