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

The Christian God As Described In the Bible Does Not Exist(2)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/18/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 546 times Debate No: 60640
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)





Round 1: No arguments. Just acceptance.
Round 2/3: Arguments and rebuttals
Round 4: Closing statements. No new arguments

No "god of the gaps" arguments allowed.

Any violation of the rules results in conduct points going to the other debater. Mutual violation results in a tie for conduct.


God of the gaps: If science can't explain it, god did it.
Exist: To be real
God of the Bible: Any characteristic of God that can be found in the Bible

I look forward to a good debate. If you cannot accept it, it is because you have not completed a sufficient amount of debates.

I argue that the Christian God as described in the Bible does not exist.


I look forward to the debate!
Debate Round No. 1


Let me begin with a list of paradoxes.

1) If God is all powerful (omnipotent) then he can create an object he cannot lift. However, at the same time, if he cannot lift the object he is not omnipotent. Conclusion: The God of the Bible does not exist.

2) Humans have free will. Or do we? An all knowing (omniscient) God would know the future. This means that he knows what we are going to do before we do the action. Therefore we do not have free will. Conclusion: The God of the Bible does not exist.

3) If god is omnipresent (everywhere at once), then can observe everything at all times. This means that God can observe all quantum superpositions. Observation collapses quantum superpositions. Therefore God would collapse all quantum superpositions. All quantum superpositions have not collapsed. Conclusion: The God of the Bible does not exist.

4) If God is omnibenevolent (all loving), He cannot commit a mean act. The Bible states that God did commit a mean act. Drowning millions of people in the flood was pretty mean. Conclusion: The God of the Bible does not exist.

5) "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." (Matthew 19:26)

If all things are possible with God, then there is a possibility of there being no God. If God exists it means he might not exist. Conclusion: The God of the Bible does not exist.

6) God must have had a creator. He couldn't have just come into existence. If God needs a creator and does not have one then well... The God of the Bible does not exist.

7) God cannot be omnipotent and omniscient. If he is omniscient then he knows what is going to happen. Thus he cannot be omnipotent because he is powerless to change the future, because it is predetermined. To be more concise,God cannot change the future because he knows that he will change it. He does not have the power to do something that he cannot predict. Therefore omnipotence and omniscience cannot coexist. Conclusion: The God of the Bible does not exist.


Becks forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Con has deleted his account. I extend all arguments.


Becks forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


I extend all arguments.


Becks forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
BTW: The screen in the slit experiment is a detector that does not produce waves.
But detecting duality with screens mounted at the slits would block the particle and then the final screen will likely only show waves with no particles.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
The Omnipotent creating an immovable Object paradox is too old and not used much any more.

I prefer the one where we cannot have free will with an Omniscient being.

The Omnipresent observation of Quantum mechanics doesn't ring true in my knowledge of quantum physics.
The collapsing of Quantum fields is caused by the instruments being used in observation.
The sensing mechanisms used to pick up quantum events create their own radiation and thus interfere with the particle/wave being observed.
If God could observe without the need for electronic gadgets, they the field would not collapse.
The Slit experiment loses the waveform part of the duality, because of the waves emitted by the electron detector.
Turn the detector off (no waves generated) it goes back to a duality, turn the detector on, the duality is destroyed and only particles are detected.

Such is detector interference waves.
If we could produce a detector that does not produce waves, we could detect the duality without collapsing the waveform.
Posted by WileyC1949 3 years ago
To define God has "ANY characteristic described in the Bible" is not only rather broad, but also totally incorrect. The Old Testament especially is the story of one people's GROWTH in faith and understanding of God. They described Him in many different ways depending on what they had learned about Him through time. It begins with a primitive understanding.... a God who was the "most high God" of all the gods that existed, that He was a God of power and might who did mighty deeds and demanded allegiance from His "chosen people" or they would receive His punishments. Later however as their understanding grew they described Him as a God of love who loves His people and want us to love Him as well. You can see this growth I speak of far easier if you read the books in the order in which they were written rather than their order of placement in the Bible. God as He was described by Christ was totally different from God as He was described in Genesis. God didn't change.... the people's understanding of Him did.
Posted by realsinghshady 3 years ago
Loving the arguments by Pro.
Posted by TheQuestion 3 years ago
Oh, I see you cancelled the other debate you instigated and recreated it here and someone else has accepted it. Oh well, I guess I will be interested to see how this goes then.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Relativist 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF and uncontested arguments