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

The Existence of God

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 847 times Debate No: 64921
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (0)




I simply think there are no reasonable arguments that support the existence of God.


Challenge excepted. Here is a pretty good argument to support the existence of God;

First of all I would like to validate the Scriptures as a trust worthy reference to history:
For one, we have very much manuscript evidence that prove to be unaltered and unchanged. We have two main manuscripts of the Old Covenant writings. The one called the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation from the ancient Hebrew manuscripts that we no longer have, and the other is The Aramaic Tanak (Old covenant). We have many ancient manuscripts of both that match each other Probably about 95% word for word. The New Covenant holds even more evidence. We have 365 manuscripts written in Aramaic (called the Peshitta) that date back to the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries that all match each other word for word letter for letter 99.9% all the way through. This shows clear proof of preservation of these writings. This shows that, apart from how unbelievable an event may seem, it is more trust worthy than the American and world history books of today which everyone regards as fact.
You may know of many passages in the Scriptures that seem to contradict. I would like to hear a couple, because I see this happen too often due to either miss translation or miss interpretation of the Scriptures.
Now touching on the things that are hard to believe, or deemed impossible:
Many say that miracles that are written in the Scriptures didn't happen based on impossibility under the laws of physics. Let me ask, how did the universe BEGIN? Newton's first law states: "An object that is at rest will stay at rest unless an external force acts upon it, and an object that is in motion will not change its velocity unless an external force acts upon it."'s_laws_of_motion
Antoine Lavoisier's law of conservation of mass or principle of mass conservation states that mass can neither be created nor destroyed. Within these two laws of physics alone it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe to simply "come to be" out of absolutely nothing. But we know for sure that is did, somehow; and "how" is the debate. Likewise, as the BEGINNING of the universe is impossible and yet we do not deny the existence of it, we also must not deny the existence of the happenings of the miracles in the Scriptures strictly on impossibility. Rather, we investigate the probability if the God that did things deemed impossible under laws of physics in the Scriptures, Is the same God that did the impossible thing of CREATING the universe. You may ask, "what proof do you have that it had to be a God that did the impossible?" My answer: What or who ever did this thing impossible, had to be something or someone that was able to operate outside of the laws of the universe, being that the universe did not exist. something or someone this powerful, whether animate or inanimate has to be considered a God. And if done alone, the only God.
So now the question is, animate or inanimate? First of all let us define animate and inanimate.
Animate: adjective-
1. alive, possessing life
2. of or relating to animal life
3. able to move voluntarily
Inanimate: adjective-
1. not alive, especially in the manner of animals and humans
2. showing no signs of life, lifeless
From Google translate.

Think of this.. Can a rock DO anything by itself? how about a plant? water? a tree? no, because none possess life. What about a cat? dog? lion? human? The answer is yes to all, because all possess live, or are living. So we see that it is not an inanimate god that can DO something as impossible as CREATE the universe, or let alone be a god at all, But It has to be an animate God or, living God, that brought all things into existence.

So recapping, we see that all of creation demands there to be an intelligent and living creator that operates outside the laws of physics. And if this is so, it would be no big thing for any of the miracles of the Scriptures to happen.
Debate Round No. 1


I disagree that the Scriptures are a trust-worthy reference to history. The Old Testament is filled with many historical inaccuracies and are contradicted with archaeological findings. For example we can use the scripture to determine that Noah's flood was some time around 2,504 B.C.. But we are also able to trace back to when the pyramids were built to be supposedly around 200 years after Noah's flood. How is it possible that after this world-wide flood that wiped out everyone on Earth except Noah and his family, Egypt has an entire civilization just two years after. The problem with both the New and Old testament is that the claims about divinity or anything supernatural are problematic when it comes to the historical reliability. The Gospel weren't written until 40 years after the death of Jesus, also after the epistles Paul, which mention almost none of the alleged facts of Jesus life. Johns gospel claims that Jesus was born in Galilee, and while both Mathew and Luke claims Jesus was born in Bethlehem, they got him there using completely different routes. As Robin Lane Fox in "The Unauthorized Version" pointed out, "Luke's story is historically impossible and internally incoherent". In the gospel of Luke we know there actually was a census under Governor Quirinius, but it was only a local census, not for the Empire as a whole. But it happened AD 6, long after the death of King Herod.
Other contradictions or instances that are confusing from scripture are... The familiar features of the Jesus legend from previously existing religions throughout the Mediterranean; Joseph's ancestry to King David should not be used to fulfil the prophesy that the Messiah should come from the house of David if Jesus was born of the virgin marry; And If you ever read the Infant Gospel of Thomas, one of the additional gospels that were omitted in the Bible, you would think you are reading a children's fictional novel.
Today scientists have not yet completely cracked the code for house the Universe began, but there are a lot of other things that we don't know about the universe and we should fill in the gap with " It must have been God". Today scientists figure that it truly is possible for something to come from nothing because "nothing" isn't really nothing anymore, its really something. Empty space is really a complicated boiling brew of particles coming in and out of existence and we now know that the dominant energy of the Universe resides in empty space. In fact, the empty space in the protons that make up your body is where most of the mass of your body comes from. Gravity and Quantum mechanics can allow space itself to be created from nothing by quantum mechanical effects. According to Newton's Law of Gravity, it would be right to assume that the universe is slowing its rate of expansion, but because energy resides in empty space we found that the universe is actually increasing its rate of expansion. This leads scientists to believe that this energy in empty space (the external force) that is altering the velocity of the Universe (the object), can be traceable to the Big Bang and possibly play an important role in the origins of our universe. We now truly have proof that the Universe could have came from nothing. The reason we can still deny stories of miracles in the scriptures is because there is absolutely no scientific reasoning behind any of it nor is there any proof. Lets pretend God created the universe outside the laws of physics just as he created miracles in the scriptures. Why would he create the Universe, then wait around 4 billions years to create life on a planet is the corner of a galaxy out of billions of other galaxies, then decide to use the same powers un-governed by the laws of physics so he can have a relationship with one and only one of the many other species of life on the planet. But he must be really shy to because he goes through great pains to conceal himself.
I have to admit that I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to prove but by the looks of it you have no idea what you are talking about. I already know that living animals are living and that nonliving things are nonliving, which by the way trees and plants are living things. Yes, it may seem like a convincing argument to you, but that is only because you cant comprehend the idea of something coming from nothing. Its almost like something that humans seem to be born with, that something cannot come from nothing its not possible. It is almost similar to the idea of essentalism: a belief that things have a set of characteristics that make them what they are. The view that categories of people have instrincally different and characteristic nature or dispositions. According to Richard Dawkins in "The Greatest Show On Earth", this belief is the reason that it took humans so long to come up with the idea of evolution. Before Darwin, there had been many discoveries and achievements in other areas of science that were a lot more complicated then the idea of evolution, but it is was only because this idea of essentialism made it so hard to comprehend such an idea. In conclusion I would like to add that I believe once we avoid the problem of comprehending these extremely difficult ideas about our universe, we can throw out the theory of a supernatural deity.


The pyramids: How do you know modern science methods of dating such as carbon dating works? It does not work. This has been proved time and time again.
Where does John's gospel claim that Y'shua was born in Galilee?
Please explain how The gospel of Luke disagrees with the historical records of today about the census.
The familiar features of "Jesus legend": I believe you are talking about the Egyptian Horus, no? The information that the poet and amateur Egyptologist Gerald Massey (the one that made the "Jesus" and horus connection) Is very faulty using unsure evidence and HIGHLY assumed ideas based on pictures, hieroglyphics, and bits and parts of information from different books of the dead. He was specifically trying to make the connection because of his bias opinion.
Joseph being the husband of Mary in the genealogy was a translation error. In Aramaic the word used means guardian, and can mean father or husband. This Joseph included in the genealogy was Mary's father, not husband. The name Joseph was very common and it would be no strange thing for both her father and husband to be named Joseph.
I haven't read the "gospel of Thomas."
"nothing is not really nothing" ?? really. If space is really something than I am not talking about space as nothing. I mean nothing; the absence of all space and matter as we know it. This kind of nothing can't turn into something. Quantum physics and mechanics is full of unproven theories, not facts. they are just a bunch of fun ideas. Don't use quantum to try to prove anything cause it isn't fact. The universe is expanding because as the Scriptures say, God is stretching out the heavens.
God did not wait 4 billion years to create anything, he did it in six days.
And according to the Scriptures, the universe takes the geocentric model, which places the earth at the center of the universe.
Trees and plants are not living by the definition I gave using animate.
Toughing on the big bang.... When a spinning object breaks apart in a friction-less environment, the particles all spin in the same direction. This is called the conservation of angular momentum. Explain to me why Venus, Uranus, and possibly Pluto spin backwards? Also, 6 of the 63 moons spin backwards. Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions. Why?
Notice how I have used simple laws of science and observed facts to support my claims, while you have had to revert to theories, ideas, and scientific "possibilities" to support your claims. Do you think you could come up with a good argument using laws of science and factual evidence rather than quantum mechanic theories, ideas, and "possibilities?"
Debate Round No. 2


Tomas154c forfeited this round.


Yahuwah, Elohim of Abraham Isaac and Jacob sent his son Y'shua to die in your place. You don't have to be afraid of judgment day if you accept him as your savior. Stop running from God. He wants you and loves you so much. He doesn't want to cause you any harm, he wants to heal your broken heart. I know there are many questions about the existence of God that were not answered in this debate. If anybody has more to ask, or wants to debate me, feel free to challenge me. But as you saw in my argument, God and Creation are not illogical or unscientific. It Is actually was logic demands. Be joyful that he is real. You can have a purpose on earth. You can know real love. Just ask him for it.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by yoshidino 3 years ago
You're funny :)
Posted by UndeniableReality 3 years ago
I always have a lot of a confidence in someone who says, "Trust me. I'm pretty smart". =P
Posted by yoshidino 3 years ago
Or three.... My other debate is five rounds.
Posted by yoshidino 3 years ago
Yes, I have this argument saved in a document on my computer. I post it on all my debates on this subject because I have not received a good rebuttal, let alone a rebuttal at all. I am searching for a good rebuttal if one exists. If you have one, bring it on. Trust me, I'm pretty smart. I can argue many things, but what's the point if my opponent can't even rebut round two of five.
Posted by GoOrDin 3 years ago
One way to believe in the existence of God,

is a great Chinese tradition, that is so hard to study, you may never find the answer if you seek.

There is a Mountain in China, a Great Mountain known as the "Axis of the World."
It is a giant, four sided mountain. One side faces east, another south, and the others west and north.

This Mountain is in the Himalayans. It is at the Axis of the Planet where God had pivoted the World when he torn open the deep and ripped Australia away from the mainland.

The Mountains then came to be formed, and it is clear to see how they did.

This Mountain which was named the Axis of the World by the ancient inhabitants, is indeed at the axis of the world, where the rift int he Indian Ocean floor leads to in the Himalayans.
Posted by GoOrDin 3 years ago
Now understanding that God is all things, know that God is the victim of all sins. He feels every pain with the victim, as that victim, in his own infinite form, in the hearts of the family and friends, in the contemptible heart of the perpetrator, and the infinite chain of negative effects to follow. God is the victim of all things infinitely until his rebirth and the perfection of this world.

God, who gave fair warning of that which gives birth to sin, and offers recompense, is endlessly in hope of our reunion with him, and is endlessly offering his wisdom to those who would reach out to him in his perceivable form: Faith and Wisdom.

Only through wisdom, and the patience of faith can one understand God. For God is infinite and unchanging.

God gave way to what is, so to ask of him why he has done so is not a correct form of wisdom or faith and one should find no response, for the address on your letter is not to God. First one must understand God is right in all things. And this is not difficult to understand, for if one doe not believe in God, then what do you ask of the atheist cosmos?

It is as God did. If an atheist needs not explain the origin of matter, would he then explain it for you? Is it not unnecessary? All he must do is tell you Energy did not come first, but it was Matter that gave a static spark that causes creation.
Posted by GoOrDin 3 years ago
The apostle thomas who is not an accepted apostle writes only about the apocalypse. fun fact*

The reasons to accept God first begin with understanding God.

God is the embodiment of all things. Not one thing exists outside of God. But God still exists outside of all things. In this manner he is infinite and universal, in both the manifest and unmanifest.

The Bhagavad gita is a good place to begin studying Monotheist religions. Abraham migrated from India, where they practiced Hinduism, which by definition is a monotheist religion. By coming to an understanding of this, it is easier to perceive what one is saying when the word God is made reference to.

As God is imperceivable. Krishna cannot be fathomed in all his Glory, as Jesus said, "Only he who comes form God can know him, and only God can know him who comes from God", and the Greeks know the entity of creation as Chaos, to whom all creation is credited, and Even Odin's father who was the First was unperceived and infinitely powerful.

When one sees this as God's nature you will begin to understand that God even must make for himself an Image, a sub-portion of his greatness that one can fathom. And this portion is his Son, the Light of the World, Jesus Christ, who was the first of God's acts, and is the creator of the Universe.

Jesus, thus, is God, but God is greater so Jesus says that he is not God.

In this we know that The wisdom of God, which is true wisdom, the wisdom of this life and the next, is the only way we can perceive God. The Wisdom God chose as an illustration for himself. The only true illustration of himself.

Christ was crucified, because if he had not been, Then God would not be permitted to only act in his own perfect form as he had desired, as a merciful, loving God who gives fair warning, and just compensation - and through his sacrifice of his perfect world and his utmost satisfaction, we were established and born into this world and given the opportunity t
Posted by GoOrDin 3 years ago
I am going to testify that Scriptures are not a valid response to a debate in which one who understands that the scriptures exist and does not have faith would thus find it therein.

Scriptures are not a viable resource for finding faith, and should not be used to convert people.

However, Creation is science**

All other scriptures made reference to are done so to validify the philosophy of the faith, which is unchanging throughout the ages.

I detest the manner in which scriptures are presented as pretense to believe in a religion or convert people.
Posted by UndeniableReality 3 years ago
You are correct, and that is a surprising fact.
Posted by UndeniableReality 3 years ago

Really? I'm surprised Pro didn't want to improve on it if they didn't have to put in any effort to get this far.
No votes have been placed for this debate.