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

The Christian God Does Not Exist

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,437 times Debate No: 13422
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (1)




I would like to thank my opponent beforehand for accepting this debate.

In this debate I wish to put forth the argument that the Christian conception of God does not exist. To begin, I would like to define the Christian God. I define it as:

An eternally existent, morally perfect, immaterial being who created the universe and holds the attributes of omnibenevolence, omniscience, omnipotence, perfect mercy and perfect justice.

If anyone disagrees with any of these attributes, I ask that they do not accept this debate, as my arguments are based on this definition.

With God now defined, I wish to put forward three major arguments. The first is the problem of evil, which will present in both logical and evidential forms. The second is the problem of non-belief. The third is the problem of Hell. Each of these arguments will attempt to prove that the Christian God's attributes contradict either reality or Christian doctrine and therefore that he does not exist.

I. The Problem of Evil

One only needs to take a quick look at a newspaper or a history book to find numerous examples or suffering; we have the Holocaust, war, starvation, cancer, birth defects, and so on, all the way down to relatively trivial examples such as the common cold and receiving a sunburn. People have recognized since the days Epicurus that this poses an apparent contradiction with the idea of a supposedly all-loving, all-powerful God. Epicurus stated it as follows:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Before I continue, it is necessary to make a distinction between two similar arguments. The first is the logical problem of evil, which claims that a loving God is logically incompatible with suffering, and therefore cannot exist. The second is the evidential problem of evil which claims it is possible that loving God exists, but in light of evil, unlikely. I plan to defend the logical problem for this debate, and seeing as it is an argument that is generally regarded as refuted, thanks to Alvin Plantinga, it will be interesting to see how this debate turns out. It is also necessary to point out that while the argument is difficult to defend, if valid, it not only casts doubt on, but refutes Christianity.

II. The Problem of Non-Belief

A second problem with the Christian God is the vast amount of unbelief there is. While there are relatively few atheists worldwide, the number of non-Christians is staggering, at roughly 4.6 billion. One has to ask the question: "Why aren't there more Christians?" Since you clearly can't love someone you don't believe exists, it seems obvious that a loving God would make his existence far more believable. Once again, my opponent must explain how the Christian God does not contradict the reality we observe.

III. The problem of Hell

A major doctrine in Christianity is the doctrine of Hell, a place of unending grief and agony, where God sends those who disbelieve or break his commandments. It should be immediately obvious that this doctrine is not compatible with a loving deity and once again, I look forward to my opponent's responses to this argument

In conclusion, I believe I have given three solid arguments as to why the Christian God is impossible. It my opponent wishes to defend his position, he must first refute each of these arguments, then resurrect a case for Christianity in its place.

I once again thank my opponent for this response and look forward to an intriguing debate.


I do not know why I accepted the challenge being a Hindu myself...but still here is my argument...
I have been taught from when I was just a child that God is pure spirit who created the universe, having myself studied in a school run by the Fransalian society, I am quite familiar with many beliefs of Christianity. But I suppose I have all rights to place my Ideas in ways I can, regardless the conditions placed by the instigator.
Let me first present my views and then the contradictions to his views.
God is not material and he resides in the heart of faith and love with which we worship, regardless of which religion we belong or in which form we worship him?
I suppose I'll first answer the most common question?
Have you seen the christian God?
I have seen him in the faith with which Christians pray everyday.
I have seen him in the devotion with which the Church works for the welfare of the society.
I have seen him in the efforts of the Red Cross as they work for the wounded ones.
I have seen him in the efforts of the MSFS as they struggle for spread of education.
And I have see him in every great Man, Christianity has given the world.

I. The Problem of Evil:

Evil is a cultural concept, which was developed by Christianity. There are very few languages in the world which have an exact translation for the word.
Who said God is impotent, there are still many people who fight bravely against evil, It is indeed God who in the form of these great souls fights evil. And why does he fail to eradicate evil completely? Because many people still refuse to listen to the call of there souls, the call of humanity, The call from God.

II. The Problem of Non-Belief:

Alas my friend you have just increased this problem by a thousand times by starting this Debate.
Well all human beings have right to follow there religions. You know how many people follow Sikhism? A few thousands that's it! Have you ever heard of the religion? So I suppose all of them must say," No not many people believe in our God, let us stop worshipping?" No my friend! It does not matter how many people follow a religion, what matters is that atleast on of them is a true follower and a true human, and God resides there in that Noble Heart.

III. The problem of Hell:
If no existed my friend or even if people stop believing in that Idea, the world will be full of crime. Do you know all religions believe in Heaven and Hell. So in the way you you presented disbelief , I now present belief. All religions believe in Heaven and Hell.

Jesus bless you my friend.
Debate Round No. 1


Con begins his statement by saying that he believes God is a "pure spirit who created the universe." While this is technically an accurate definition of the Christian God, it is merely necessary, not sufficient. For Con to prove his position he must not only defend the existence of a "pure spirit who ceated the universe," but he must further prove that it has the characteristics ascribed to it by Christianity which I listed in my first statement.

He goes on to say, "I suppose I have all rights to place my Ideas in ways I can, regardless the conditions placed by the instigator." While Con of course has all rights to state whatever he wants here, he must prove the resolution to be false in order to win, and this does not allow for redefining God. If it did, then I could simply have taken up the same debate and said, "God really does exist, just look at the sun, that's God." This is absurd of course, as Pro obviously does not mean the sun when he says God. In a similar way, I explicitly stated in my opening statement that I define the Christian God as, "An eternally existent, morally perfect, immaterial being who created the universe and holds the attributes of omnibenevolence, omniscience, omnipotence, perfect mercy and perfect justice."As such, Con must not only prove his God, but he must prove one with the listed attributes.

Con then claims he has seen the Christian God in the faith with which Christians pray everyday, the devotion with which the Church works for the welfare of the society, the efforts of the Red Cross as they work for the wounded ones, the efforts of the MSFS as they struggle for spread of education, and every great Man, Christianity has given the world." Con could mean he has directly seen it, in which case he has redefined the Christian God to be merely these actions and virtues listed He could also mean he has indirectly seen it, and that these things could not exist without the Christian God, so He must exist; my reply to this argument is that his is a bare assertion, Con has offered no reason why people should be unable to exhibit virtues in the absence of a God; as such, the argument is not substantiated as proof of God's existence.

Now I will address Con responses to my three arguments:

I. The Problem of Evil

Con first responds to this argument by stating that evil is a cultural concept. I fail to see how this changes the fact that an all-powerful and all-loving being would stop the suffering we see around us. Even if evil does not exist, the argument retains all it's validity if one simply replaces the word "evil' with 'suffering'.

He then says that Evil is not eradicated completely because people refuse to listen to "the call of their souls." This argument fails for two reasons. First, it does not address natural evil, the millions of people killed by disease, natural disasters and starvation have nothing to do with someone's refusal to listen to "the call of their soul." Furthermore, an omnipotent God would be able to eradicate all these things and more without needing to use humans as puppets.

II. The Problem of Non-Belief

Con begins by saying we all have a right to follow our religions; however, this misses the point, as I don't propose that the Christian God would force people to believe in Him if he existed. What I propose is that if the Christian God exists, then he would provide evidence for his existence, and he surely would not give a perfectly acceptable naturalistic explanation to all the phenomena he is said to be responsible for (evolution, for example)

Con claims that only a few thousand follow Sikhism. This is false; according to several sources, the number of Sikhs is between 23 and 26 million[1][2][3], a far cry from a few thousand.

Con then points out they do not all leave their religion due to lack of fellow adherents. This is irrelevant for two reasons. First, the problem of non-belief posits that God wants us to love and/or worship him. This appears not to be the case in Sikhism[4]

III. The Problem of Hell

Con responds to this problem by saying that if hell did not exist or even if we stopped believing in the idea, the world would be full of crime. This is unsubstantiated as well as false, as Sweden has the highest percentage of atheists or agnostics (estimated at up to 85%)[5], yet has a homicide rate of only 1 per 100,000[6]. Compare this with the United States of America, with only 1.6% claiming to be atheist or agnostic[7], and a homicide rate of 4.2802 per 100,000[8]. Also, atheists make up only 0.209% of the prison population[9], despite making up 0.7% of the United States population. This is all beside the point anyways, as an omnipotent, loving God could simply grant us a stronger desire to do good and avoid evil, solving the problem of crime from the start.

Con claims that all religions believe in heaven and hell without any citation. Considering how absolute this statement is, I need only provide one counterexample to refute this claim. Here is a chart of numerous different religions: notice that the majority do not even mention heaven or hell.

Conclusion: Con has done little to resolve the existence of a Christian God, given the characteristics I listed in my opening statement, with evil, non-belief, or the doctrine of hell.




rohitmulange forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Seeing as my opponent failed to post his response, I wish to extend all of my points.


rohitmulange forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Arguments extended.


rohitmulange forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Arguments again extended.

Seeing as my opponent has failed to rebut my arguments, I ask voters to vote pro.


rohitmulange forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Austriananarchist 5 years ago
I think you're going to have to reinstate it.
Posted by Austriananarchist 5 years ago
Sorry, I've had a lot of homework to do. I'll re-accept now, but I might not have the time to reply given the limited amount of time I have.
Posted by chengste 5 years ago

why did you bail out of our debate?
Posted by Evolution078 5 years ago
Seeing as this is a topic of interest and that Con had failed to make a rebuttal in time. Every one that wish's to follow a intriguingly similar debate by Austriananarchist & myself go to; "The Problem of Evil Disproves an All-Loving, All-Powerful God", Debate No: 13474. It goes more indepth within the topic.
Posted by jebwatson 5 years ago
Also, why would you ask that those who do not agree with your definition not accept the debate? Isn't the point of debate to debase your opponents beliefs because you find them to be wrong? Curious to your response and eagerly expecting them,
-Jeb Watson
Posted by jebwatson 5 years ago
Sorry, there were SEVERAL typos in that last comment. My fault, I should have read t back over before posting it. Feel free to ask any clarity questions in the comments.
Posted by jebwatson 5 years ago
III. The "problem" of Hell- Please read my last comment to get this one clearly...

Where would you prefer those who do not accept God go? The Bible says (though not in these exact words) that everyone on this Earth, whether they have the bible or not, is responsible to now God. this knowledge is possible through observing his creation, or in other words, science. science reveals the incredible amount of order in this universe as well as its sheer complexity. Humans all have the capability to see the world's necessary complexity, and as a result its necessary creator. Without one, our world, simply our earth, is mathematically impossible six times over, given the odds based on the age of the Earth (supposed), and its massive complexity. Those who refuse to acknowledge God in this complexity proven by science should be punished. If a child refuses their parents' commands and is simply just obstinate towards them, should they be let off without punishment? Unless they have pathetic, uncaring parents, then these parents would answer "No way!" Similarly humans must obey their creator and father, God. Those that go to hell have refuted refute their own creator and father and this deserved punishment, just like a child refusing his parents.
Posted by jebwatson 5 years ago
No offense to rohitmulange, but your argument in round one does not effectively answer the questions, and I would have to say does not well represent the Christian worldview. I realize that you've said you are Hindu, but perhaps this was good reason to not accept the debate. I being a Christian would answer in the following way:
I. Evil
I believe "evil" is something which God tolerates, not supports. By allowing evil, God yes, does allow humans to suffer, but through this suffering we should turn to Him and look towards He and His kingdom. Our suffering should make us better appreciate, and give us an even greater yearning for God and His perfection. In addition, our suffering should reming us that we are not perfect and are not ourselves gods. In our elevated position in this world, we often have the tendency to think that we are the best among all other beings. Our sin and suffering is a reminder that there is in fact a being who is greater. Finally, by allowing evil, and then saving His followers, God's glory is both increasing His own glory (which He, being the greatest, perfect being, deserves) and making salvation something special. If everyone is allowed something, its no longer something special, its now common. Similar, I believe is Heaven and admittance into it.

II. Lack of Universal acceptance
Like I said in the portion on evil, God has made Heaven into something "exclusive" to give a special nature, rather than something commonplace. If everyone believed, everyone would go to heaven, thereby making it common.

III. See next comment please, out of characters...
Posted by chengste 6 years ago
Your call how ever it will work for you, when you are ready set it up as I am fairly new to this
Posted by Austriananarchist 6 years ago

I'd probably have the time to debate you right now as long as I can have the maximum amount of time to argue (I think its three days).
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Austriananarchist 5 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 Checkmark1 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:60