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

This House rejects the existence of a higher power (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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 1/17/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 368 times Debate No: 99047
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




I will firstly start off with my definition of God. For simplicity I will include the definition of the Christian God. According to the Bible, God is 1-Omnipotent, 2- Omniscient, 3-Supernatural and 4-Omnibenevolent.

I will firstly start off with why the first 2 statements of Omnipotence and Omniscience aren't logically correct then I will hand over to side Opposition to put forth their argument.

Firstly, Omnipotence is not logically correct as it brings about it's own problems. Firstly, there is the paradox of omnipotence, basically asking: Could God create a stone so large that even he couldn't lift it? This states that the omnipotence argument is flawed because omnipotence states that you can do anything. If God could create a stone so large that he couldn't lift it, then that means he isn't omnipotent as he can't lift it. If he couldn't create a stone that large, then he is therefore still not omnipotent.

Secondly, there is a problem that arises with the argument of Omniscience. Omniscience basically means all seeing and all knowing. If God knows everything, then he also knows that there is something he doesn't know. And if there is something that he doesn't know, then he is not all knowing. If God doesn't know that there is something that he doesn't know, then he still isn't all knowing.

To sum up, I have stated that the definition of the Christian God is flawed and doesn't make sense. I will now hand over to side Opposition to state their arguments.


Making omnipotent and -science rational concepts can be done by making 'time' a factor in the game, movement to be more precise. Therefore saying Usain Bolt is the fastest man in the world is correct and incorrect, since it doesn't state the set of time in which this claim is taking place
- Usain Bolt didn't exist in 1890, couldn't even have a chance being one.
God could be capapble of creating a stone that large he couldn't lift at one time, after a set of actions he loses those powers, he can could recreate that rock, but couldn't lift it, the statement stays valid.

How about lifting a rock and not being capable of lifting the rock at the same time.
To be capable of doing everything and not being capable of doing anything can be achieved by splitting a definition of something into at least two entities, in this case God into being any. God having a side who can do everything and a part that can't would solve that word game.

Does such a God exist in 'this' reality is yet to be discovered. Is it impossible to understand or to create
a virtual universe with such an ompnipotent being, no.
But hey the truth remains the same, whatever it is, accepting anything or not.
Debate Round No. 1


Splitting the definition of god's omnipotence to fit your arguments do not work without explaining how omnipotence can be split into doing both everything and nothing at the same time. It is contradictory no matter how you look at it. If you can do nothing, then you truly can do everything, fair point. Even if that was the case, you cannot split god into two separate sides, one that can lift the rock and one that can't because it still creates a paradox. The one side can lift the rock, therefore meaning god cannot create a large enough stone. The other side cannot lift the rock at all, so it still contradicts the definition of the god no matter which way you look at it.

Now, moving on to my first point, I shall explain the problems arisen from the fact that god is supernatural and the fact that god is apparently omnibenevolent. According to accepted dictionaries, the definition of supernatural is basically nonexistent or immaterial and being subject to much speculation and theory. Therefore if your god is supernatural, you cannot attribute it to fact and you cannot attribute it to anything that works in the factual, natural world.

Moving on, the fact that god is omnibenevolent simply shows ignorance amongst everyone that thinks god is omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolent basically means pure of evil. This is simply not true amd even the Bible references stories about when god does bad things, such as sending a flood to kill every single human on Earth, or when god sends the 7 plagues down on Egypt. Even if god was omnibenevolent, it contradicts the fact that he is omnipotent as in order to be omnipotent, you'll have to be able to do both good and evil. Contradiction.

We don't truly know whether there is a god in this world, but even if there is a higher power, it certainly wouldn't fit the view I've rebutted throughout this debate.


Yes, taking time into account answers the questions flawlessly.
I am capapble of creating a pile of rocks that weight 60kg and lift it and also I am not capapble of doing that,
just not at all times.

God can do everything, he can be anything - many - it is not a paradox if it's logical.

Rejecting models that, at this time we have not fully defined or be capable of understanding is completely
waste of time and simply stupid. God is the answer to everything, he has done everything, that can be easily
the starting point, the how is the most crucial part of the game.
You can't reject something you don't know, reject Ombaal for me.


- nature of god
Obviously there has been no flood on this planet, ever, that did such damage ever, no need to discuss fairytales.
Also if God is good or evil is a matter of perspective, saying God is evil and saying he is good,
as like with saying god can create a rock that he can't lift and can, from your perspective he is evil, from my perspective he is good, no problem there.
So discussing if God is good or not, if Hitler is good or not is entirely waste of time, the actions don't change.
Debate Round No. 2


1st - No, time doesn't matter in this case when we are talking about omniscience. You may be capable of creating a stone so large that you couldn't lift it, but it doesn't matter because you aren't God. The example falls. And even if you were God and you could create that stone, you still wouldn't be able to lift it, therefore conflicting with the idea that God can "do everything" therefore it is a paradox. I ask God to create me a square circle: if he was omnipotent he would be able to do that as omnipotence also allows God to do logically impossible things. But since God cannot create a square circle (at least not in our world) he is therefore not omnipotent.

It is not logical if it is a paradox, which it is.

2nd - Saying that God is the answer to everything is like saying God created all life, or our morals come from God. It is known as the argument from ignorance fallacy: Basically anything that you attain to be a result of God can just as much be a result of Krishna, or Buddha, or Cthulhu, or The Force, or even a flying spaghetti monster. If your sentence can be replaced by: Ombaal did it, and still make just as much sense, then it is an argument from ignorance.
Just as much I can't disprove something that doesn't exist, you can't prove something that doesn't exist either. As far as I can see, you made absolutely no points of your own so far as to why God would exist. All you did was try to rebut my arguments with false views and a ignorant ideology.

Next on rebutting the "nature of God"
Firstly you wouldn't know the nature of God if he doesn't exist. You are going against our own point by trying to say you know the nature of something that is only an idea. Contradiction there.

Secondly, if there has been no flood on this planet, then the Bible is false. And as far as Christian sayings go, "The Bible is the word of the Lord" and therefore you are implying that the Word of God is false, "just a fairytale", so thanks for helping out there.

Thirdly, Hitler was a good leader, but a bad person in general. Then again, so were the Arabs in history when they castrated, raped and bound roughly 15 million Africans and Eurpoeans alike. Those people aren't God, those are just people, we are flawed, so is God, if he is an idea from our imagination, he is flawed. Nothing we create is flawless.

Finally, the actions do change when discussing God's "omnibenevolence" as it would contradict the idea that he is omnipotent. If God were to be omnipotent, he would have to do both good and evil as only doing good would mean he can't do evil, therefore he can't do everything. But even if the flood didn't happen, considering the Bible is the Word of the Lord, he shows his own falsities in his own words. Therefore he is not omnibenevolent.

God is an idea humans have created. God is false. If there is a Higher Power out there, like I said before, it doesn't fit the Christian definition. There is no way to prove something we don't know exists, but it is very easy to disprove an idea.


1st - Time matters in this case for the reason that time is a human created invention to track
sets of movements of particles... god lifting a rock, lifting is a verb and is therefore under influence of time,
so we must take time in account the second most crucial variable, time after the existence of omnipotence who is
executing the verb. The paradox is under influence of time and can be explained when you take time in account,
it is not a paradox, it is easily understandablea and logical for these reasons - the explanation applies.

Yes, saying God is the answer to everything apparently means literally everything, but it's non explanatory obviously,
it doesn't explain anything and can not be used in any useful way, especially in practise..

3rd the Bible is a story indeed, there has been no world wide flood on this planet, just doesn't match with reality.
If God is the master programmer of this simulation where we are in, or a God of any religion is true, it wouldn't be a religion anymore, it'd be under the influence of science physically, now God is just something that put evolution through natural selectin in use and all that.. let's keep searching for that.

.. and oh yes as your words imply in the finally section, words which humans have created are a very poor and inefficient way to create hypotheses, since oh boy there are only so many ways to interpret them.
What are the rock solid hypotheses used from the bible that we all agree on, let's let the ones do it that claim it is all defacto, otherwise ignore them, okey dokey..

Lastly doing evil and good are verbs under influence of time, being omnibenevolent.. does that mean doing
only good relative to everything that adjective can be used for at all times in any model, in this case reality,
congratulations to you! That surely, absolutely does not apply to the God of Christianity, even if that God is causing good by causing e.g. to a person..

but don't be stupid, you can't never change the minds of believers, so stop wasting your time if that's your goal,
entertainment purposes, why not.. since can not think of anything more fun things to do than that.
But doesn't debating with believers that are like walking proof for god wikipedia sections get extremely unimaginative over time.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by 7536658 1 year ago
But in this case you are not doubting God you are doubting the definition of omnipotence. In your definition (saying that omni-potence means someone can do everything), omni.potence is self-contradictory...the bible even lists some things god can't do, for example deny himself.

I will try to state a new definition for Go's omni-potence:
As power is the ability to change something, God's omni-potence describes him of being unlimited in his Power.

Meaningly, God can change and influence everything. He can even turn "no-life" into "life". But hecannot do everything, especially create living paradoxes.
Posted by TheOriginalBob 1 year ago
7536658 No, you just aren't getting the point I'm trying to make. If God cannot create a green box which is red then he isn't omnipotent, because being omnipotent means all doing, or being able to do everything. If I asked God to draw me a square circle, he wouldn't be able to do it logically. Therefore not being able to do that conflicts with his apparent ability to do "everything". Therefore the definition of the Christian god is flawed.
Posted by 7536658 1 year ago
Total nonsense...asking if god can make a Stone bigger tha he can lift himself is like asking if he can draw an round triangle....God is omnipotent but that still doesn't mean he can create a green Box which is red...tht is nonsense
Posted by TheOriginalBob 1 year ago
Well, FollowerofChrist1955, atheism isn't a belief that there is no god, it is a lack of belief in god. It is for the simple reason that atheists have nowhere to go that they turn to atheism, it is their only route to take
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
Better review this debate;
Atheism- A lost reality! A hopeless, helpless cause!
Hell, Who will go there, and Why?
Posted by devcoch 1 year ago
I like your thoughts here. I wish I disagreed and could counter, It makes me want to play devils advocate a little.
No votes have been placed for this debate.