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

The Judeo/Christian god must be the one true 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 383 times Debate No: 85643
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)




Let's have a good old fashioned debate. It's been a while.

By accepting the debate you must agree to follow the format or else forfeit:

R1: Acceptance

R2: Arguments

R3-R5: Rebuttals

The argument is just as it says. According to evidences - the God of the bible must be the one true god. I'm against that notion (there is no true god), Pro will be for it.



I accept the debate of showing that the true god of the bible is the true god.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks Pro.

C1: Logical analysis of a god

Faith is never an adequate way to judge if something exists or if it does not exist.

Don’t you know I’m the son of god? How do I know I’m the son of god? I feel it in my bones. I see it in the sunset and in all the little things that happen to me – I know my Father in heaven is looking out for me. Every time I preach at my church that I’m the son of god, I feel filled with joy and I’m reminded that I must be the son of god.

That sounds ludicrous – but if you only change it a little bit, you’ll obviously find that the argument of faith is much the same. I say this to point out that the argument is simply invalid. You can’t say you know something exists if you have no proof – feelings in your gut, serendipitous events – all of these kinds of arguments should at best be ridiculed. They’re rubbish – toss them in the recycle bin.

Epicurus said it best some two thousand years ago:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then He is not omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing?
Then He is malevolent.
Is He both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is He neither able nor willing?
Then why call Him God?

C2: Scripture does not prove god

Scripture is fallible, untrustworthy and certainly a fraudulent piece of fiction. How to show this? I could try and cherry pick verses to show that god contradicts himself constantly, or I could point out that the entire wanderings in Egypt, or the conquering of Israel by Moses and company was entirely made up and has no archeological proof. Instead of doing that, I’ll really zero in on one story. I can show this point with a historical analysis of the birth of Christ.

There never was a census at the biblical date - Luke says during the reign of King Herod a census was called. A census was called, but not until some eight to ten years after Herod was dead. It was the Census of Quirinius. After Herod's death in 4 BCE, his Kingdom was split between his sons - who were deeply unpopular. Sulpicius Quirinius was sent in to take over. He was immediately more popular and in 6 CE he held a census for tax purposes. I say all this to show to you that careful records were kept in this time period.

Jesus had to be born in Bethlehem according Micah 5:2. So the authors would have been put in a tough spot. How to get Jesus to Bethlehem. They used a census! - and they picked one closest to Jesus' supposed birthday. Then they remember Hosea 11:1. They've got Jesus to Bethlehem, but not to Egypt.

In order to get Jesus to Egypt, a fabrication must occur. Herod will kill every boy in Bethlehem. There’s a problem. Herod is already dead at this point, so he could not have called a census and could not have ordered Jewish genocide - even in Antiquities of the Jews, written by oft-quoted ancient third-party biblical commentator Flavius Josephus, it makes no mention of this massacre.

Second of all, you would never travel in a census, the tax collectors would come to you, and they had to come to you in those days because land and livestock had to be linked directly to its local owner. This is the first time in history anybody has suggested you would have to return to your hometown for a census. How did Herod know about the Messiah? Uh-oh. They must create wise men to ask King Herod where Jesus is. Thus, the wise men are created, again, from thin air, and they arrive on the already dead Herod's doorstep following a god-given star that gives bad directions (after they chit-chat with Herod, suddenly the star appears over the exact right spot).

Now they've got Jesus to Egypt. (I mean, this is so Python it's just a bit much.) They now realize that the timeline is totally bungled. They'd have us believe that Herod is still around for some time while they stay in Egypt waiting for him to die. But he's actually been dead all this time, and while he's been dead, things have been happening in the thriving political environment of Rome. In Matthew 2 it says that when Herod died Joe had a dream in which god told him to go back to Israel because the bad guys are dead. It says “But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there, and being warned in a dream he withdrew to the district of Galilee. And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth…”

It's a bit confusing. I thought Joe and Mary were from Nazareth to begin with. Perhaps not? In any case, they return to Nazareth after realizing Archelaus is reining over Judea. But remember when I went through that history? The census was called by Sulpicius Quirinius - Archelaus' replacement.

C3: Nature does not prove god

God is proven through nature, because nature is complex and beautiful - No. Don’t ever mistake complexity for design. Our complexity and the complexity of nature evolved slowly over millions and millions of years. Often theists can’t or won’t conceptualize such change taking place. It’s not the easy answer – the easy answer is ‘goddidit’. Evolution, however, is a fact as much as the theory of elasticity is a fact. It’s usually a failure to see the forest for the trees. How often I hear responses like, “I’m no monkey!” or “I didn’t come from pond slime!” It’s just some fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. No, we don’t come from apes – us and apes shared a common ancestor some millions of years ago. We evolved separately from apes. The time scale this evolution happens on is tremendous and difficult to quantify, but it must be quantified to some extent in order to understand how evolution works.

What about the big bang? Well, this is the cutting edge of science. We thought the universe was losing acceleration – then we found it was accelerating thanks to dark energy. What is dark energy? I don’t know. Does that mean it must be god? No. The absence of knowledge simply proves the absence of knowledge, not the existence of god. Who started the big bang then? Probably, nothing. Could it have been a prime mover? Unlikely given the sheer chaos of the universe, but possible. Is that prime mover the god of Abraham? Nearly impossible to prove, and very unlikely.

How do you get to the question: “What caused the big bang?”

You assume that everything must have a beginning. So then if everything has a beginning, and indeed that is how you got to the question in the first place, the question must be asked: if god was the start of the big bang, who started god? If you say nobody started god – then you are left with few options. He is ‘outside space and time’, or which thereby proves my point that nobody started the big bang is just as valid because both points make the same assumption – that nothing can start something, only mine exists without the premise of a prime mover.

If you say he exists outside space and time, then how does he interact with us? How does Moses go get the commandments from something outside space and time? What is space and time? Space and time is reality. We traverse through time in a three dimensional space. Therefore something outside space and time is at best a hypothesis – it’s unknowable and therefore non-existent by definition. We can only judge reality by reality.

You are left trying to prove something that exists both in and out of space and time and that has literally nothing to do with our total experience as material human beings traversing space. Good luck.

C4: Morality does not prove god

The infamous Numbers 31:
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. Numbers 31:17-18

Or New Testament rules for slaves?
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. Ephesians 6:5

What about those bizarre rules?
Do not allow a sorceress to live. Exodus 22:18

Does god think sorcery is real? Does Pro think sorcery is real? Should I belong to Hufflepuff or Gryffindor?




DonaldDuck1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Unfortunately Pro forfeited and thereby violated the rules I laid out in the opening rounds. He forfeits automatically.


DonaldDuck1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Continued, ect.


DonaldDuck1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


DonaldDuck1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 64bithuman 8 months ago
@jtp23 Hitchens Razor as sharp as it ever was.
Posted by Jtp23 8 months ago
Why can't one of the other thousands of gods be the true God? It's arrogant to think that we could know with confidence any such God exists. The bible said so is not a reason. That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Non believers just dismiss claims and give logical reasons why a case for God doesn't hold water.
Posted by 64bithuman 8 months ago
I'm not as intimately knowledgeable about phallic details as you are, I'm sure.
Posted by GoOrDin 8 months ago
Con doesn't know dick about what he is talking about. so how can he have this debate?
Posted by 64bithuman 8 months ago
Perhaps a question for you - How can something exist outside space and time? You can't prove something exists outside of reality because all we have is reality to judge reality by. Anything else is at best an hypothesis. Even if I submit that a prime mover might have initiated the big bang (which I do not), the leap one must make to assume that the prime mover was the god of Abraham is indeed quite a leap.

As a human being in a material world - I have yet to detect things that are not in a physical space and do not use time - unless you have better evidence?
Posted by ViceRegent 8 months ago
How does it follow logically that something outside of space and time does not exist or is obsolete? Prove it?
Posted by 64bithuman 8 months ago
A common argument: Let's follow it to it's conclusion using the same logic.

Big bang - where did the energy come from?

God - where did God come from?

God is eternal - what is eternal?

Outside of space and time - What is outside of space and time?

That last question is where faith creeps in. If something is outside space and time it doesn't exist - or more accurately, it is obsolete.

It's undetectable by the very nature of it being outside space and time. If God is outside of space and time then why do you insist he performed miracles on earth - or that he created the earth? Does he exist out of space and time or not? You are left with the same conundrum. Where did god come from. The better answer is, unless you really want to get into physics, say we don't know.
Posted by ho11yw00d 8 months ago
Our existence and reason for existence is beyond our comprehension level. We point to science to give us an answer, for which the say E=mc2(the big bang). But, where did the energy come from? Hmmmmmm
Posted by Jevinigh 8 months ago
Posted by 64bithuman 8 months ago
I am going to attempt to prove that one cannot know that a god exists.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by U.n 8 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided well thought out arguments and the effort is obvious. He cited bible verses to support his argument. Pro simply accepted and abandoned the debate. IMO that should result in conduct, source and more convincing argument points for Con.