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

There is no such thing as god

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/1/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,001 times Debate No: 19088
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




To be a god, one must be omnipotent.

Omnipotence requires the "god" to be able to complete any task.

If said "god" could complete any task, then he would be able to create an object so heavy, that he
would not be able to lift it.

If he created an object so heavy that he could not lift it, then he would fail a task.

If he cannot complete the task, then the "god" is not omnipotent.

This leads to a contradiction.

From this contradiction, we can logically derive that there is no god.

Can you see any way to believe in a god now? Go ahead. Try and prove me wrong.

Also I am Crypto


I am already debating something similar, so I thought I would take this. I accept your challenge and look forward to this debate.

I will provide a rebuttal to both your suggestion that "to be a god, one must be omnipotent" and your claim that "if he cannot complete the task, then the 'god' is not omnipotent."

Deities and Omnipotence
A god does not requrie omnipotence. From the first diverse Paleolothic religions to the organized views of the Vatican, there have been varying degrees of attributes given to deities. For example, the deities of the polytheistic Ancient Greeks were not omnipotent,[1] nor were the gods of Ancient Egyptian mythology, as they often died or exhibited limit in abilities.[2] Thus, god or gods are not necessarily omnipotent as they are not necessarily viewed as such -- in order for the stone argument to work, god or gods must be universally accepted as omnipotent by an authority on the religion associated with the deity in question.

Regarding Omnipotence
However, let us say we are arguing about a god that IS regarded as omnipotent, such as the god of Abrahmic religions, regarded as omnipotent by Muslims,[3] Jews,[4] and Christians,[5] or Ik Onkar, regarded as omnipotent by Sikhs.[6] Let us assume for a moment we are speaking of what is viewed as a truly omnipotent god. If a god is all-powerful, then he is not bound by the same logic that the Universe he created runs on. If a god is omnipotent, it is within his ability to change Universal constants such as pi or exist outside of what we perceive as logic. Though this may sound like utter rubbish, you must remember that omnipotent is omnipotent by its very definitionan omnipotent god is limitless in ability.

I have provided you two completely different responses. In "Deities and Omnipotence," I have shown that a 'god,' in human perception, is not necessarily omnipotent as several religions have limited views on their deities' abilities. In "Regaring Omnipotence," I showed how a truly omnipotent god, if there was one, is not bound by the logic that you use in your argument.

I look forward to your response, and good luck.

1. Meier, Christian. A Culture of Freedom: Ancient Greece and the Origins of Europe. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2011. Google Books. Web. 1 Nov. 2011. <;. p. 92.
2. Pinto, Paulo M. In Search of the Lost Phallus: On the Need for Isis to Mate. Lisboa: Instituto Oriental Da U. L., 2009. Web. 1 Nov. 2011. < 469.
3. Rizvi, Sayyid. "Islam." Lecture. Makerere University College, Kampala. 1967. World Organization for Islamic Services, 1 July 1977. Web. 1 Nov. 2011. <;.
4. Winston, Pinchas. "Parashas Vayaira / 5769." Project Genesis, 2008. Web. 1 Nov. 2011. <;
5. Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. 1651. Google Books. Web. 1 Nov. 2011. <;. p. 415.
6. Arneja, Simran Kaur. Ik Onkar = One God. New Delhi: Simran Kaur Arneja, 2009. Google Books. Web. 1 Nov. 2011. < 111.
Debate Round No. 1


Yes but that doesn't make sense though. Can you explain it better. I think that it really doesn't matter. I really want to support Christians and I like them alot as people, but in my opinion they are not very high on the wheel there if you know what I mean.

Here is proof

The Romans have no files of Jesus and he isn't a true man.

Higher power isnt falsifiable as in you cant run tests on it. you cant say that it exists or doesnt exist. so its illogical to assume it exists.

All evidence for god is subjective. near death experience, god visitin people, miracles. all evidence that cant be tested scientifically. all of its word of mouth from people you dont even know.

There have been many different jesus' around his time. they had apostles and claimed to have risen the dead, were persecuted and killed. their followers said they were raised from the dead. they were not different from jesus.

You can't prove that God isn't real, only that the bible is crap. Which most people know, but fear of hell keeps them in check, as was intended.

There is no proof that he is real at all. None at all. There hasn't been a single point of it being true. All you guys are giving false info and we know that. How can you fit 3 million species in a boat and feed them for half a month while in the middle of the biggest storm the world has ever seen? There is too many things to really be sure of who is true.

Can you prove Thor isn't real? If not, shouldn't you believe in him just in case? That's what you want us to do, right/?

Also here is a quote from a website

"The US is largely Christian because of tradition. You wouldn't believe how many people I've met who call themselves Christians but have no idea what's in the Bible or what the doctrine of their own church says. A large number of them can't name more than one of the Ten Commandments, many don't know how many gospels there are, many go to church once a year or less, and so on. Is that sincere belief or habit? I'm willing to bet that at least half of the people who call themselves Christians in the US are cultural Christians who never think about what they claim to believe."

Sadly, you cannot have proof something does not exist. Non-existent things do not leave evidence for their non-existence.

This rule of basic logic, actually, is exactly why the default position of science is "Until you prove something exists, we will presume that it does not."

Sea Squill: Agnosticism is not an alternative to atheism or theism; you just don't seem to understand what "agnostic" means. Because it doesn't mean "I don't know."

"I am getting some of the most baseless denial I have EVER seen on here from christians."

You clearly haven't been here very long.

Bad things happen in the world, no theistic god exists.
An observing (deist God) must need morals to be an observer. If a moral God exists, a god is supposed to be perfect, thus He will have to do something about evil things happening. He doesn't.
A moral God that does not observer, well, even if that was the case, that would mean that His non-existence would have the same effect.
Pantheism equals atheism.
Panentheism, see the above for deistic God.
God is all powerful, which means He is the most, uh, valuable thing. We can't then be valuable, because that would mean that His power is not infinite. So, either we exist, or He doesn't.

Any God that knows that it will rain tomorrow in Seattle is incapable of preventing it from raining. Because if God could change the weather so that it didn't rain tomorrow then that means that God couldn't know that it was going to rain since it wasn't really going to rain. I know; I just blew your mind. If you know for a fact that something is going to happen -(and the future is whatever is going to happen)- then there's nothing you can do to stop it, even if you existed outside of time. It's confusing, but it's an entirely valid point that has so far gone uncontested

God, being omniscient and omnipotent, know what will happen in the future, assuming that there is no outside (supernatural) interference; however, the only reason that he knows what will happen in any point in the future is because he knows what will happen immediately before it, and what will happen before, that, etc. until we arrive at the present.

However, God could also know how any certain intervention on his part would affect antecedent events. (Because God is omniscient and omnipotent, there is no reason to believe otherwise.) God, being omniscient, would know that doing A would result in B and that intervening by doing X would result in Y. God's "knowledge" of the future is true if certain precincts are fulfilled, and God knows exactly what those precincts are. However, from our point of view, we see the events as set in stone as they occur, and it is here where my opponent's syllogism fails to translate the relevance of God's position outside of time.


Vote Pro.

I do not have enough time to sit down and rebut each of these separately.
Debate Round No. 2


Mysterio forfeited this round.


Thanks for the debate and I apologize for not finishing.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
It seems that my URL shortened links did not work in my sources. Here are the links to my sources:

2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Viper-King 4 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:07 
Vote Placed by heart_of_the_matter 4 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 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: voted PRO due to CON giving up.