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

agnostic/deist vs christian/catholic debunking creationism on biblical text.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 655 times Debate No: 67738
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




in this debate I will prove creationism is flat out bull. first round is acceptance. if you quote a verse cite it do the same with websites. wikipedia is an invalid source .

my opponent will state that he or she is christian catholic and/or a creationist for round one

round 2-4 is an open debate rebuttals, statements and all

no trolling...


I play a Christian on television and believe in the biblical account of creationism. Good luck debating God, because that is who speaks through me.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting my debate so quickly

As of now if god speaks through you I will say good luck to you and god

Creationsim if I'm correct is the biblical account that God created the universe and everything before it and after it. (I was a former christian) I understand that you believe he is the alpha and omega who acts on the physical is not physical, but at the same time is omniscient and all powerful.

The word for word definition of creationism is

"The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."

And to be clear this is an evolution vs creationism debate but evolution is not the act of the creation of the universe via and explosion of space and time. It is the scientific evidence and truth that the human conscience along with what is the physical human structure evolved through a series of events and adaptions from a much smaller population of species. We are in a sense mammals that have been proven to evolve from monkeys and such and we split paths because we developed a higher sense of meaning and intelligence for our physical and mental being.

You might say something like

1. If we were not created by god then how did the first organism begin to develop

And my answer to that is "I don't know." but what I can say is I don't think that being created mature and my wife being created from a rib be anymore logical than saying under the right conditions life can be formed from a single celled idiot to a thriving race of humans.

Also answer this

If we were created by god then how come we have the story of cain and able- cain killing able (I think thats how you spell his name) than further being banished to the world where he probably stumbles upon a town out of nowhere. And don't say that Adam and Eve had more babies because that wouldn't make sense either. And I'm sure you can figure out why.

That wraps up my first argument. Good luck to you and your god



I just want to reiterate. My argument doesn't have to be convincing. My argument need only be logical. If my opponent can't show any logical fallacies, than I have proven that a logical argument exists for an infinitely intelligent creator God. I also would like to request voters attribute no source points to either me or my opponent. We will both use a lot of philosophical arguments that won't require sourcing.

Crash Course in Modal Logic

Since my argument relies on modal logic, it is important that voters have at the least a very basic understanding of what modal logic is.

Modal logic consists of 4 propositions.


Possibility deals with what is logically possible, not physically possible.

If something isn't logically impossible, than it is logically possible.

For example the Flying Spaghetti Monster is logically possible (as far as I can tell). So, it is possibly true.


Something is impossible, if it can't logically exist. A triangle with 4 sides would be logically impossible and therefore couldn't exist.


Necessary propositions are ones that must be true and can't be false. For example 2 2=4 and can't be false.


Contingent possibilities are ones that could be true but could also be false. For example Obama is president of the United State is true, but it could have been false. So it is contingently true. Al Gore was not president of the United States is false, but it could have been true so it is contingently false.

Possible Worlds

Possible worlds is just another way of representing what is possible. If I say the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists in some possible worlds and not in others, than all I'm saying is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is possible.

Ontological Argument for the Existence of God. (Borrowed from Alvin Plantiga and various other people)

Premise 1

It is possible a greatest possible being exists. There are no logical absurdities here or contradictions. If my opponent can prove this premise wrong then the whole argument falls apart. So far in the history of mankind this has yet to be done so good luck.

Premise 2

Necessarily, if a greatest possible being exists he must be omnipotent and omniscient. If it wasn't omnipotent and omniscient then a greater possible being could exist in some possible worlds.

Premise 3

If the concept of the greatest possible being is coherent it exists in some possible worlds.

Premise 4

If a greatest possible being exists in some possible worlds it exists in all possible worlds. It exists in all possible worlds because it is a necessary truth and not a contingent truth.

Premise 5

If the greatest possible being exists in all possible worlds, he exists in the actual world.

Premise 6

The greatest possible being exists and by definition is God. It is omniscient and omnipotent.

Logically Valid

The argument is logically valid. Here is the mathematical proof here:

"Ax=df x is maximally great
Bx=df x is maximally excellent
W (Y) =df Y is a universal property
Ox = df x is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect

1) `74; (W07;x)Ax pr
2) `33;(x)(Ax iff `33;Bx) pr
3) `33;(x)(BxX35;Ox) pr
4) (Y)[W(Y) iff (`33;(W07;x)Yx W44; (`33;~(W07;x)Yx)] pr
5) (Y)[(W07;Z)`33;(x)(Yx iff `33;Zx)X35; W(Y)] pr
6) (W07;Z)`33;(x)(Ax iff `33;Zx) 2, Existential Generalization
7) [(W07;Z)`33;(x)(Ax iff `33;Zx)X35;W(A)] 5, Universal Instantiation
8 ) W(A) iff (`33;(W07;x)Ax W44; (`33;~(W07;x)Ax) 4, Universal Instantiation
9) W (A) 6, 7 Modus Ponens
10) W(A)X35; (`33;(W07;x)Ax W44; (`33;~(W07;x)Ax) 8, Equivalence, Simplification
11) `33;(W07;x)Ax (`33;~(W07;x)Ax) 9, 10 Modus Ponens
12) ~`74;~~(W07;x)Ax W44; (`33;(W07;x)Ax) 11, Communication, Modal Equivalence
13) `74;(W07;x)Ax X35; `33;(W07;x)Ax Double Negation, Impl
14) `33;(W07;x)Ax 1, 13 Modus Ponens
15) `33;(x)(Ax iff `33;Bx) X35; (`33;(W07;x)Ax X35; `33;(W07;x)`33;Bx) theorem
16) `33;(W07;x)`33;Bx 14, 15 Modus Ponens (twice)
17) `33;(x)(Bx X35; Ox) X35; (`33;(W07;x)`33;Bx X35; `33;(W07;x)`33;Ox theorem
18) `33;(W07;x)`33;Bx 16, 17 Modus Ponens (twice)
19) (W07;x)`33;Bx 18, Necessity Elimination"

Pro can't argue that this is not logically valid, only that it isn't logically sound. I will focus on rebuttals in the next round.

Necessary Creator

Any evidence for a simulated universe is evidence for a creator.

Premise 1- The universe is literally a hologram. It's a projection of information from a flat surface. Nothing you see around you is real. Everything is just a holographic image projected from a flat surface. Science is just now starting to understand this.

Premise 2- Observer bias, helps prove we are in a simulated universe as well. Matter acts different when we don't pay attention to it. When we look away from matter it acts like a wave of possibility. However, when we observe matter it acts solid. We see it what It does and how it behaves. This short video may explain it better.

Premise 3- The universe is pixelated. Just like a video game our universe is pixelated. We are clearly living in a simulated universe.

Premise 4- Human DNA is really just computer code. It's a way to store information. It's not a natural process, but unnatural and the obvious creation of a higher being.

Christian God is the tri-omni God of the MOA.

1. God is omnipotent.

"This is, perhaps, the easiest of the three to answer: Yes, God is omnipotent! There is even a verse that, in the King James Version and New King James Version, uses this very word: "Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns!" (Revelation 19:6)."

2. God is omniscient.

"The Bible tells us that God does perceive all things, which means that no fact can be hidden from His knowledge. As King David recognized: "Indeed, the darkness shall not hide from You, but the night shines as the day; the darkness and the light are both alike to You" (Psalm 139:12). God sees all things, and nothing can be hidden from His knowledge"not even the secret intentions of the heart (Psalm 44:21). In fact, He understands our own intentions better than we do (cf. Jeremiah 17:9-10; Hebrews 4:12)! As Paul explains, "there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account" (Hebrews 4:13)."

3. God is omnibenevolent.

"Who is God? Notice that God is love:

8 God is love (1 John 4:8).

Also notice that there is no fear of judgment in love:

16 And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him. 17 Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment (1 John 4:16-18)."

(Quotes on trio no God taken from )
Debate Round No. 2


brutaldubstepa forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


I am so sorry forgive me. College can be a bit of a pain.

I just want to that this was very good. But in the end your argument needs to be convincing and concrete. Yes you need to make it logical but saying "For example the Flying Spaghetti Monster is logically possible (as far as I can tell). So, it is possibly true." Wow just wow. Ok so the flying spaghetti monster is possible? Since when? Something that you must realize is that your god is the most logical and at the same time most illogical idea ever. It is truly logically impossible that a flying spaghetti monster exists.

Anyway God as you call him or Lord almighty creator of heaven and earth...well lets see he is supposed to love all right? He gives free will right? He knows all right? He slaughtered every human being on earth because they did not worship him anymore or that they disobeyed him right? Well that was their free will and he killed them all. Why? Because they did not worship a man in the clouds. Also if he knows all then he knows all that we will do in our lives right? Then thats not free will. And don't try to explain god because you apparently can't explain god for anything. Because he is god and you can't possibly comprehend the thoughts and decisions of god.


I am truly baffled by how to respond to this. Absolutely every single point I brought up has been dropped. This is an easy vote, my opponent brought up no points, that I haven't already covered in my previous round, he has offered no rebuttals. He basically concedes the debate by refusing to engage in it.

Clear win for me, please vote appropriately.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
You should have just conceded the dude te, rather than obligate me to respond to your nonsense which is not even s rebuttal for my arguments.
Posted by brutaldubstepa 1 year ago
both rounds are for acceptance and questions sorry for the poor explanation.
Posted by Philocat 1 year ago
Just to note, the catholic church does not support creationism.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
So is round one for acceptance, or questions?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round.