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

Resolved: God Is Weak

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
Pro Tied Con
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/8/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,263 times Debate No: 17822
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)




Thank you to anyone who participates in this debate. Special thanks to my opponent for either accpeting or declining this debate. Good Luck.

Because of my personal opinion with the resolution put forth, I am obliged to argue in acceptance to the resolution that states, 'Resolved: God Is Weak'

This will be a four round debate. The criteria in which the debate will flow is as follows---
  • Round One: ACCEPTANCE ONLY (and key terms in regards to resolution)
  • Round Two: Main contentions/arguments put forth
  • Round Three: Rebuttals/cross-examination of opponents points---NO NEW ARGUMENTS
  • Round Four: Closing statements---NO NEW ARGUMENTS

Before passing this debate onto my opponent, I must lay out some key terms in regards to the resolution...

(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the Supreme Being.

self explanatory

Of a low standard; performing or performed badly

With those statements put forth, it is obvious to see that I am arguing the fact that God is weak in the sense that he fails to perform what must be done, what should be done, and ultimately what can be done in regards to his position as supreme ruler.

With our criteria at hand, our definition at equal opportunity, let us see if CON shall accept. Thank you.



[2]-The Oxford American College Dictionary


I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this topic and hope it will be fruitful and yield some good fruit. My opponent aims to prove or at least give evidence that God is weak, as you can see the burden of proof is squarely at the feet of my opponent.

In regards tot he definition of God as creator of the universe, it is interesting that he regards the creator of all the universe to be weak. If my opponent is a subscriber/follower to the theory of biological evolution, he is essentially saying that that theory and mechanism of biological evolution is weak as it came and was designed from this weak God.

I suggest my opponent take a look at an atom bomb and the Big Bang theory and argue sufficiently that the being who caused that to happen is a weak and feeble being. Considering that in the recent discoveries the Big Bang theory, where particle physicists believe the Big Bang was a huge explosion of energy. In fact this explosion would be astronomical compared to an atom bomb. [1]

Consider this God merely spoke the universe into being-a universe that astronomers estimate contains more than 100 billion galaxies. But all the power contained in this entire universe is but a small representation of the unlimited power of God. The combined energy of all earth's storms, winds, ocean waves, and other forces of nature do not equal even a fraction of God's almighty power. [2]

This God my opponent likes to verbally bash seems more powerful than superman and all the action heroes put together, because this all powerful God does not "fix" things the way my opponent wants them to be done. It seems my opponent has self proclaimed himself God and now falls subject to the criticism he presents.

My opponent represents a theological debate, thus requires theological responses but I will not be limiting myself to these types of arguments unless absolutely necessary. My main focus will be scientific and philosophical rebuttals to any sort of evidence my opponent presents.

Debate Round No. 1


I'd like to begin by thanking my opponent for accepting this debate, and hope that it will be a good one for both PRO and CON.

Good Luck.

First off, some points in regards to his analysis of the resolution at hand.

"If my opponent is a subscriber/follower to the theory of biological evolution, he is essentially saying it is weak as it came and was designed from this weak God." Not necessarily. I do not mean for this to turn into a religious quarrel, but I am arguing the fact that if there is a god, a force, or some sort of powerful being out there (not necessarily saying there is or isn't)---then why, as supreme ruler, isn't he or even SHE doing their job correctly, in regards to the general population? It has been argued for quit some time, as too whether or not this 'God' is actually weak (as the resolution definition states--- Of a low standard; performing or performed badly) or of high quality and performing his or her job correctly. I suppose you can relate it too the theory/and or mechanisms of what biological evolution is fueled from, but in this case, it is more of a yes or no.

Also, in regards to what you mentioned about God's actual power, and massive strength...well, that doesn't necessarily mean God is or is not is simply stating his physical stength, which is only a portion of an actual being (or especially supreme ruler's) general persona. This debate it more in terms of failing to do his job correctly, as the definition of weak states---Of a low standard; performing or performed badly...not necessarily if he jueated the big bang, and so forth. The answer to this debate lies deeper than just physical strength, it also includes mental strength, and the knowledge to meet the needs of everyone, not just one general, small populaton of people.

Contention One: God allows for sufferage

It is true. Look around, you'll see it everywhere. Suffering, and pain. There's is really no answer to it, but in several cases, people turn to the definition of God...the supreme ruler, or any other powerful force they believe looks over them, and controls their fate. This is the case that I am talking about...if their is a God/supreme ruler who looks over all and does indeed plan for them what is too happen...then why does he turn to sufferage and pain for some who don't deserve it? For some who cannot bear the pain? Is this 'God' weak, is he of proficient performing standard for some if he has to make others suffer? The question lies deeper than just physical strength, it is a matter of what happens in this world.

In several cases, innocent people have shared their stories about family members dying, relatives getting sick, brothers and sisters getting hurt...all of these people who have a devoted faith to their 'God' After the incident occurs, they look to them then ask...'why?' Why does this happen?...not only too them, but others as well.

In one case, a poor, innocent person who prayed daily and devoted her time and life for her religion and her 'GOD,' was let down when asking for just enough money to rent a place for her and her family to live. Her 'God' never answered this call and left her empty handed in the end. This was the case of Nate Wilson. [1]

After analyzing the issue at hand, Nate realized it wasn't fatih issue, it was 'God's' useless power, his useless job, and his useless ways of performing tasks for the people who devot their time and love to his faith...Gd had failed to perform his tasks in an orderly manner, one that cold just barely fit the needs of one single woman, who tried hard, and gave it her best...

Contention Two: Aside from praying, and suffering, God is weak because people have Godlike Power

Although the sufferage portion of this debate is a bit different from this portion, it still mixes into the ingredients of why God is indeed weak, supporting the resolution at hand.

Aside from praying, suffering, and even physical and mental strength of the supreme ruler himself...God is weak because of the reason stated previous (failing to perform tasks)---but to coalesce with that saying, God is also weak because people indeed have 'Godlike powers' and even to some extent a 'Godlike persona.'

Humans do indeed have godlike powers that can change the ways of the world, and if it is simply down to us, then considering the fact that HUMANS can change the world, and HUMANS can do what is necessary to make change and live happy, normal, healthy, benefical lives that fit our mood and our personality, then it goes therefore the God, or any supreme being out there is simply powerless and weak.

And that does go in regards to the resolution (weak meaning of low standard) because of God wasn't of low standard...then why would humans want change all the time? Why is there bloodshed, evil, and killing? Wars, guns, stealing, and murder?...Is it God? Perhaps. But even more, it is for us to decide, and for us too change, and make our lives of high quality and proficient standard...that is stronger than any 'God' anyone has ever known.

In the past, and even up till today, people have made substantial change, beneficial ideas, and great workings, all targeted towards aiding society. [2]. In several sections of our lives, change has been made to make things better. Everyday, scientific discoveries, ideas, and inventions are put forth and made, all with the intention of making life better (for the most part---for example, medications and hospital equipment for immediate care) for anyone, and everyone who needs it. This is not probability, this is not by chance...this is not because pray or devotiation is because of life, and because of power at the hands of people. It is the will of the people to make change, and to create new things and ideas...and why? For the betterment of society, for the betterment of the people, and for the betterment of the world as whole. This is godlike, this is supreme ruling. No 'God' is necessary in this case, and no 'God' (at least according to mt previous argument) will ever do this UNLESS HUMANS, THE SOURCE OF ALL POWER ACT NOW!

Contention Three: Lastly, God is an incentive for evil

True, God working as an incentive for evil is more of an 'evil' (or in God's case...more of a Satanic) thing to do, but most definately fails for God to perfomr his taks in an orderly and proficient show weakness in other words.

I'm not at all saying 'God' is bad, just mere stating the obvious fact that he fails to let people communicate properl and thrive in certain times.

Per definition (of evil---Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.) [3], something that causes evil has to be evil itself. No good, moral person would purposefully cause evil acts to be committed. The God of the bible causes so many evil atrocities it is amazing to me that anyone could worship him. The most blatant example of this is hell. I’m reminded of the analogy that goes as follows.

Imagine a father were to tell his son that by the time he is twelve, he must decide whether or not to love his dad. The father says the child is free to choose whatever he wants, but if he chooses to not love his father, then the father will put his son in the oven and cook him. What sort of freedom of choice is this? How ironic is it then that when God does this, we worship him, say “God is Love”, and build churches in his honor.

Yet this is the choice God gives us in the bible. Either love him, and choose him, or we will face the fires of hell. Simple as that. And how is this choice? And how is this free will?...How is this...purposeful, let alone moral, right, or benficially committed in a proficient manner? How is this meeting the needs of everyone? It doesn't, and 'God' fails to do this, thus God fails to accurately commit to his job, and work at it in a stable manner.








Christosapologia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


For whatever reason, my opponent has forfeited round two. This is a shame, and may throw the debate of course, considering round two was a vital round (arguments and evidence were scheduled to be presented in this round).

In any case, please extend all of my arguments and refutations in regards to his cross-examination of my analysis of the resoluton put forth. I have nothing else to discuss but this.

Whatever my opponent decides to do in the next round his up too him, but it would be helpful for both sides if you include a rebuttal statement AND outline of your points.

Thank you.


Christosapologia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


For Whatever reason, my opponent has once more forfeited a very vital round. At this moment, this debate seems to have become a tad tumultuous in the fact that I don't believe my opponent has anything else to say or do.

It is quite undeniable that PRO has won this debate. Please, once more, extend all of my arguments and refutations.

My opponent can do whatever he pleases in the next round, but the winner is already certain.

Please vote PRO.


Christosapologia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by kohai 6 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Christosapologia never argued that God wasn't weak, in terms of performance, but in terms of strength and power....costing him points for his arguments. His forfeits also leave him a few points short of conduct as well. Spelling and grammar, as well as sources, were equal.