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

Proofs Of God Fail To Be Sound

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/2/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 311 times Debate No: 90581
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)




I am a phyrronian skeptical Atheist who maintains that there is no necessity to believe in God.

This is my second attempt to have a debate of this sort, the current one has resulted in my match being accepted by a troll who didn't engage in any true dialogue with me over the topic at hand.

Regardless of any potential disagreements, I am greatful for the existence of people who do strive for knowledge and take debates seriously like Brontoraptor.

I hope that the time used to discuss this topic will be used well, and that the both of us can truly come to question a long debated phenomena and appreciate any differences.

Anyway, I yield the rest of this time for Brontoraptor's potential acceptence of this debate.



I'd like to thank Pro for the debate. Hopefully he does not mind me going ahead and getting started

People sometimes look at me with wonder when I say I believe in the God of the Bible. What they do not know is how many different concepts, genres, and thoughts go into that belief. There is an order to the "madness", if you will.


In Genesis God draws a line in the sand. He declares that Ishmael will NOT inherit His promises or kingdom. He curses Ishmael. God referred to Ishmael as wild, violent, and untamable. He declares a prophecy that Ishmael's descendants are slaves and will have their hands against each other and against everyone else. Thousands of years later here we are. Ishmael is the "Father of Islam". Muslims self declare themselves the "Slaves of Allah". Islam is based on jihad(holy war) and is, per the Quran, commanded to be violent to the unbelievers(nonmuslims).


What one must understand is Genesis was written way before Christianity came to be. Revelation was written way before Islam came to be.

The book of Revelation gives us a portrayal of a specific future series of events that get rather specific.

In (Revelation 16:13), we are introduced to the "False Prophet" of the spirit of Antichrist.

Around 600-700 AD Muhammed came along and was proclaimed the infallable prophet of Islam. He is so infallable thst he cannot even be depicted in Islam. It's not just that he started a religion. It is the nature of that religion and the statistical improbability of it all matching up in such a way.


What one must know is that Muhammed was an illiterate Arab, and the New Testament was only written in Greek in his day.


To be "Antichrist" means to reject the divinity of Christ, specifically denouncing Him as "The Son of God". (1 John 2:22)

As a beginning position it is neccessary to look at an inscription on the Islamic "Dome of the Rock". Here is a translation of the inscription:

By Biblical definition, Muhammed and his "god" are Antichrist by definition. If the Bible is true, Muhammed is literally an agent of the devil himself.


"Spirit of The Antichrist"

(2 Thes 2:4)
"He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God."

The Islamic Dome of the Rock sits in the place of the former Jewish temple of God. Instead of God/Christ, it bears antichrist rhetoric all over it and is the "dwelling place" of Allah, the nameless Antichrist "god" who blasphemes God/Christ.

In Revelation 13:6 "It opened its mouth to blaspheme God."



Quran- "The Beast of the Earth"

And when the Word is fulfilled against them (the unjust), we shall produce from the earth a beast to (face) them: He will speak to them, for that mankind did not believe with assurance in Our Signs.

— Qur'an, sura 27 (An-Naml), ayat 82[1]

"It will brighten the face of the believer and “He is destined for Paradise” will be written on his forehead."


What the Bible said was coming 700 years before there was an Islam.

"It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a MARK on their right hands or on their FOREHEADS."
(Revelation 13:16)

"Then I saw a beast, coming OUT OF THE EARTH. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon."
(Revelation 13:11)


Revelation 13:15
"The second beast was given power to give breath to the image, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed."

1)The prophet sets up an image to the Antichrist "god". Muhammed did. Here are pictures. (Link)

2)They must bow to the image. They do. (Video demonstration)

3)And the odd kicker. It "speaks". It does...

"By Allah, Allah will bring it forth on the Day of Resurrection, and it will have two eyes with which it will see and a tongue with which it will speak, and it will testify in favour of those who touched it in sincerity.”

Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 961; Ibn Maajah, 2944

4)Death to all who will not worship the Antichrist God.

Let's here a Muslim tell us the penalty. (36 second video clip)

Yep. It's death.


The Antichrist and the False Prophet will have a specific agenda to kill as many Jews and Christians as possible. - Rev 13:7, Dan 7:21, Dan 11:30

Quran 9:30
And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the Son of God; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may ALLAH DESTROY THEM.

Satan is titled "Destroyer" in the Bible.

Quran 8:12
I will cast terror into the hearts of the disbelievers. Therefore strike off their heads."

-The Bible tells us the followers of Antichrist behead Christians.

"..those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus."
(Revelation 20:4)



What is even stranger is that Islam looks for the Mahdi in the end of days. He will stand against someone who is called "The King of Kings". This is the title of Jesus Christ in the Bible.

The Bible depicts Satan as

Allah commands death to nonmuslims repeatedly with a consistant drumbeat.

Muslims are commanded to lie to nonmuslims. (Taqiya, maruna, tawriya, kitman)

Allah says in the Quran that he will destroy the Jews and Christians.

In the Quran Allah's title is? "The Greatest of Decievers".

Debate Round No. 1


SkepticalAtheist forfeited this round.


To start off this round I will present the story of Isaac and Ishmael in the Biblical book of Genesis.

Isaac was a young boy when Ishmael was growing into his pre-manhood. Ishmael was caught saying bad things to young Isaac and taunting him, even chastising him. Isaac's mother, Sarai, had Ishmael dispelled from her home. Ishmael was the son of a slave named Hagar.

Ishmael was prophesied against by God Himself, saying Ishmael would not inherit the kingdom of God, nor would his descendents, even stating that his seed would be violent, untamed, hands against each other and even against their neighbors. Ishmael's descendents are Muslims. He is the father of the original Arab tribes, the "father of Islam", the "father of Muhammed". Nice call on God's part, as so it stands today. Isaac's descendents, Jews and Christians on one side, and Ishmael's descendents, Muslims, on the other side. And so it is, the Quran promotes violence, death, Islamic view as "superior", and a view of arrogance promoted from Muhammed himself.

Strangely, in accordance with God's initial distaste of this group, Islam's founder, Muhammed, who is viewed as a Muslim's infallable example, was accused of demon posession as a child, initially claimed the Quran was inspired by a demon, became suicidal, married a 6 year old Aisha and masterbated on her (thighing), and actually had real sex with her at age 9. He had many, many wives, taught the art of lying and deception(taqiya, maruna, kitman), and taught violence, even to the point of raping infidel women justifiably and taking sex slaves whom you could rape. He also declared women "half of a man". Looks like God called that one thousands of years ago. It still stands as such even right now to this day.

It's such a bizarre thing in this way. The correlation between the Old Testament account towards Ishmael's seed in Genesis and the Devil's seed in Revelation is unreal. They both give different accounts of different concepts, yet both together correlate into one idea that is described perfectly.

In Genesis we know God has rejected the group. It is predicted as violent, arrogant, the enemy of the Jews, and Arab.

In Revelation it is predicted as a religious conceptualization consisting of a "new god", having taken over the temple, antichrist by definition, an antichrist "false prophet" who is ultimate in authority, and the followers behead Christians. The group is set on the conquest of the whole world, bows to a graven image, abastes women, etc.

The Quran commands Muslims behead Christians multiple times. Muhammed denounced Christ as the "Son of God". The Quran sets Muslims as "Superior" to nonmuslims. And on and on and on..


The Dome of the Rock-

For over 3,000 years, the Jews had a temple in this exact location. The Temple of Solomon resided in this exact location, and was the exact temple that Jesus Christ Himself would have walked through in His lifetime. In the book of Revelation, it told Christians that one day an abomination unto God would occur. There would be another set up in its place that claims to be God and renounce Jesus Christ, thus named the "Spirit of Antichrist". By Biblical definition, Allah is Antichrist. Allah claims to be God. Allah does everything Antichrist was supposed to do and in the exact pinpoint location.

(Video giving more information if neccessary)


Here is an ex Muslim stating when he saw 666, which was written in Greek in the New Testament, he understood what it meant. The same symbols were used in Arabic. The Greek 666 read in Arabic, "bismillah", "In the name of Allah".


Here is what the Bible says about Christ's title when He comes back to the Earth.

(Revelation 19:16)

And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.


What does Islam say about the "King of Kings"?

Volume 8, Book 73, Number 224 :

Narrated by Abu Huraira

Allah's Apostle said, "The most awful name in Allah's sight on the Day of Resurrection, will be (that of) a man calling himself Malik Al-Amlak (the King of Kings)."


What does the Bible say about dreams in the end of days?

"And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your men shall see visions and shall have dreams."

(Acts 2:17)

Muslims are "seeing divine Jesus" in their dreams. Over 1 million Muslims have made such a claim on social media. Some have converted and been killed.


Now, I'll get into a more tangibal proof.


According to James Gates, Science Advisor to the President of the United States, the equations that are used to describe the universe in strings, are Binary Hammin's Self Error Correcting Computer Codes.

Debate Round No. 2


SkepticalAtheist forfeited this round.


My opponent looks to have disappeared, so I will give a variety of interesting proofs.


Scientists have observed that at the moment of conception, when the sperm infiltrates the egg, there is a flash of light.


The Fermi Paradox-

The apparent contradiction between the lack of evidence and high probability estimates, e.g. given by the Drake equation, for the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations. In other words, by probability alone, if darwinian evolution is a real thing, and not a fairytale, our small portion of theMilkyway Galaxy should be teaming with intelligent life. So where is everyone?


Kalam Cosmological Argument-

Whatever begins to exist has a cause;

The universe began to exist;


The universe has a cause.


Satisfying Infinite infinities: God as the singularity-

My argument goes something like this:

We have 2 possibilities in our reality.

1)Our reality is finite, thus the equivalent of an oil spill that literally exists inside of nothing. The entire concept is a paradox within the vary rules and constructs of our reality. This is why most scientists and Atheists stay away from this proposal. It would quickly point to an outside neccessity.

2)The second is the infinite reality. No beginning. No end. No start.

This is where the atheist thinks they have cheated theism and jumped past it. Not so much. It leads to the law of EVERYTHING. Infinite everything means literally everything. Through some type of darwinian-like means, everything exists. Every story ever told has happened, somewhere, somehow(Including the Bible).

Every person and thing is a doppleganger. There are infinite you's, infinite me's, infinite everything. There is no first me, yet has never not been infinite me's. We have in one form or another always existed. This goes for the highest possible, conceivable being as well.
Debate Round No. 3


SkepticalAtheist forfeited this round.


The first ontological argument in the Western Christian tradition was proposed by Anselm of Canterbury in his 1078 work Proslogion. Anselm defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived", and argued that this being must exist in the mind; even in the mind of the person who denies the existence of God. He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, then an even greater being must be possible — one which exists both in the mind and in reality. Therefore, this greatest possible being must exist in reality. Seventeenth century French philosopher Rene Descartes deployed a similar argument. Descartes published several variations of his argument, each of which centred on the idea that God's existence is immediately inferable from a "clear and distinct" idea of a supremely perfect being. In the early eighteenth century, Gottfried Leibniz augmented Descartes' ideas in an attempt to prove that a "supremely perfect" being is a coherent concept. A more recent ontological argument came from Kurt Gödel, who proposed a formal argument for God's existence. Norman Malcolm revived the ontological argument in 1960 when he located a second, stronger ontological argument in Anselm's work; Alvin Plantinga challenged this argument and proposed an alternative, based on modal logic. Attempts have also been made to validate Anselm's proof using an automated theorem prover. Other arguments have been categorised as ontological, including those made by Islamic philosopher Mulla Sadra.

The basic idea as I explain it in some of my arguments is this. If reality is infinite and has always existed, everything has always existed infinitely. This includes the highest conceivable being.


The teleological or physico-theological argument, also known as the argument from design, or intelligent design argument is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, for an intelligent creator "based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural or physical world".

This would include things like the probability of the drake equation vs no other observed intelligent civilizations/the Fermi Paradox, the codon table or "Genetic Code "of DNA, and adinkas vs String Theory in reference to scientists such as James Gates and "Super Symmetry" including the equations that are used to describe the universe being destinctly Hammin's Binary Self Error Correcting Computer Code.

Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by boognish 5 months ago
@FollowerofChrist - If Con ends up winning this debate, it will not be as a result of using your "race of newborns" argument. No rational, thinking person with even an elementary understanding of evolution would use this argument. Well, maybe Ray Comfort or Kirk Cameron would, but then my point still stands. The reason they would not? It is not a rational, thoughtful argument that even addresses a problem within evolutionary theory.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 5 months ago
Get Him to PROVE how Life began on the Earth.

The only possible way for Life to begin on Earth was for species to have FORMED as ADULTS? There is no NATURAL way, for any creature much less millions of species t have formed as ADULTS.

There is ALSO no possible way for Life to have began from millions of Newborns ... they'd been dead in a week, without an ADULT to care for the, give them food, Water, protection in a harsh environment!

So Scientifically, there is NO Explanation as to HOW Life began!

Genesis states God created all things, as Adults to include Man. Don't Matter if SkepticalAtheist WANTS to believe it or not ... he cannot PROVE under any scientific way that life should even BE HERE!

we have to understand we cannot save them all, we can only reason with them, if the choose to continue to suppress the truth. You got to let them go and try to save another!
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 5 months ago
your in real trouble cause you CAN'T believe in Evolution anymore either! Sorry!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ssadi 5 months 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: The BOP was fully on Pro (since nothing otherwise is mentioned), yet they failed to provide any argument at all. So, arguments go to Con by default. Furthermore, Pro forfeited 3 out of 4 rounds. So, conduct also goes to Con.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 5 months 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: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con. Con also was the only one who made an argument , so arguments to Con by default.
Vote Placed by PokeTides 5 months 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Had sources to use