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

Can one prove the God of the Bible to be real using logic?

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: 7/26/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 954 times Debate No: 36010
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




No, one cannot. I cannot find the God of the Bible mentioned out of the Bible...meaning the evidence to prove him must come from within the Bible. Therefore, the Bible must be trustworthy. To be trustworthy it cannot be proved wrong. Since things like evolution, the age of the Earth etc have been proved already; this is NOT a trustworthy source.

If one says "you cannot take it literally" then you should take it as a metaphor. OK - so then why is God literal and, say, Genesis, just a metaphor? One cannot simply nit-pick parts to be literal or metaphorical. That's not using logic at all.

So, not trustworthy if literal, no way of showing that God isn't just a metaphor if not literal and (as far as I can tell) not mentioned out of the Bible or scriptures taken/added into the Bible.

I challenge any and all to refute this without making the fatal mistake of taking a bias that something if true before proving it to be so. Allez!


In The Name Of Allah. I decided to accept this challenge because The God of the bible is the same God of the Quran. I know the bible from cover to cover and I agree that its not accurate at all. that's why God revealed The Noble Quran.

Yes you could prove The God of the Bible without using the Bible itself. Its called rational reasoning. Look if you were to sit down and ponder. Can our brain really be this complex? How can something exist from nothing? If there is such thing as an Intelligent Fashion such as our brain, surely there is a Fashioner. That Fashioner is God Almighty. Look, if God does not go hand in hand with science, then that disproves God.

I totally agree that the bible is outright bogus but the reality is that there is only One GOD.

In Islam,You have to believe in Allah. Not just blind belief but beliefs that are supported by evidence.
1) Al fitrah
3)Al shar'ah
4) Al hiss
You need not worry the rest just concentrate on number 2 since You do not accept textual evidences.

In short, I hope that you find the Truth and please be Truthful to yourself.

Peace be upon you!
Debate Round No. 1


First and foremost, a huge thank you to "thg" for his input! I appreciate it.

OK, here we go! Round two!
So, I will accept that the God Allah and the God of the Bible are the same God. So you start by asking several questions.
1) Can our brain really be this complex. A) Yes, although granted it did take millions of years.
2)How can something exist from nothing? A) I am not an expert but the idea is that without this being accepted, in a regard, both creationism or otherwise couldn't exist. If something couldn't come from nothing - then where does the Big Bang come from? Likewise, where does God/Allah (or whatever deity you choose) come from. If one says that God is eternal and has no beginning then why not save a step and say that the Universe has no beginning?

Number 2 - reasoning. Ok, I'm all for it. I understand my first argument didn't make as much sense as it could have done (again, thanks to "thg") but I still fail to see how proof can be found in the Bible, Quran, Torah etc... This is circular logic:
The Quran is the word of Allah (God). Ok, but why?
Because the Quran says so. Ok, but why?
Because the Quran is infallible. Ok, but why?
Because the Bible is true. Ok, but why?
Because the Quran is the word of Allah (God). It just proves itself and is not logical at all. This flawed logic also works for The Bible, the Torah, The Book of Mormon, and the best selling works of L. Ron. Hubbard. (Thank you to TheThinkingAtheist and Seth Andrews for this wording.)

Also, one cannot disprove God. One can only prove it using science and logic - what this debate's about. Another thing I would say is that the definition of faith regarding religion is:
"Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."
Therefore, if you can prove God, you do not have faith in the religious sense because you now have proof for Allah. If you have faith in Allah, you admit to not being able to prove his existence using logic and proof - which is something to think about.

I am beginning to repeat myself now, but I will say this:
I cannot see any argument that you've proposed. You summed it up yourself:
"In short, I hope that you find the Truth and please be Truthful to yourself."
While I respect you and Islam, I do not see that as an argument. Could you please clarify how anything constitutes as "logical proof" in your first refute.
Many thanks to "thg" and "Freedom_fighter-Irfan".
I'm not a Muslim, but out of respect:
Peace be upon you, too!


In the name of Allah. I really apologize for my Short comings and I also want apologize if I offended anyone here.

So here I go. You threw in a few Points that I will gladly reply and I do hope that you understand. First of, I just want everyone to know that Religion And Science must Go hand in hand to prove god(I will elaborate on this point).

1)Big Bang and Allah. That's right. If something couldn't come from nothing, then where does the Big Bang come from? It comes from GOD. My proof is that Allah Described the big bang theory in the Quran.
"Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, then We separated them, and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?" (Quran 21:30)
That is the verse that described the big bang. Islamic scholars noted that this is the verse that describes the big bang.
If you still do not believe. Well ok. Does the universe expand? Yes they do. Its a known fact that scientists found that the universe is expanding. The Quran has this to say,'And the heaven We created with might, and indeed We are (its) expander." (Quran 51:47)
My Question is that How can anyone know of this facts 1400 years ago??? Therefore, This proves of the existence of God.

2)The Quran being the word of Allah. I have ample proof that the Quran is from Allah.
1.Scientific accuracy.
2.Language Beauty.
OK, from the argument above, you would already know that the Quran is 100% scientifically Correct. As for the language beauty of the Quran. During the Lifetime of The Prophet Muhammed(SAW), the non-believers would call him a poet due to the beauty of the Quran in terms of the way it is written and said. Not to forget that Muhammed(SAW) came in the time where the people were obsessed with the beauty of the Arabic language. When the Quran was revealed, it was at the top of the game. So much so the even the enemies of Islam at that time would secretly hide to listen to the beauty of the Quran. They would come at night when the Muhammed(SAW) was praying the night prayer just to listen at the beauty of the Language. And Muhammed(SAW) was illiterate so how could he create a book that is at the top of the league?

3)Science and Allah. I shall repeat this again. Science and God should go hand in hand to prove God. Listen, in Islam we have to provide proof for every thing that we belief. So if we believe in Allah, we have to give evidence. Since you want logical proof that God exist, here we go. By the way, I am not a creationist.
God is omnipotent and He knows well of everything that happens. So The fact that God described scientific fact that is only known today, but it was revealed 1400 years, is Very Amazing. For instance, Allah Told us about life FROM water, big bang theory, divisibility of atoms...etc. All this leads to only one conclusion. There Is GOD.

When I said that, "in short, I hope that you find the Truth and please be truthful to yourself." That is not an argument at all. That is wishing you Goodluck.

I hope this is clearer than my first argument.

peace be upon you!
Debate Round No. 2


So here we go!

You start (the argument) by invoking a common argument that if something can't come from nothing, "then where does the big bang come from?" Well, science doesn't know and will admit that and keep searching for the answers. You propose the argument that as the Quran verse:"Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, then We separated them, and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?" (Quran 21:30)"
states what could be interpreted as the big bang that's the proof. you then quote other texts from the Quran to explain other things, such as the Universe expanding.
First, quote mining from a book "being Holy Text, or otherwise" is often misinterpreted and this proves nothing because you use God to prove God. You already assume that Allah exists, therefore, Allah exists.
As for "how can anyone know of this facts 1400 years ago???". Two things:
a) It is possible that people were completely using guesswork. Or
b) The Quran is misinterpreted as things like "we are the expander" can mean that the Heavens are expanding. You assume that Heavens=Universe here. That's one example.

You also seem the believe that two cases of possibly misinterpreted texts prove the whole Quran to be correct 100%. That's not logic at all; it isn't.
As for language beauty - I agree that the Quran is beautifully written, but this fact isn't proof of anything either. Many poems of, say, flying pigs are also beautifully written. Does this mean flying pigs are real? Of course not. Now replace flying pigs with Allah of Quran etc... and the logic does not change. I wasn't aware that Muhammad was illiterate which could imply that someone else wrote it for him. But it doesn't constitute as proof of Allah. For example, if I hire an author to write a book - then it's a book with his name, fine. But what if this said author was a "ghost author" which is someone who doesn't want their identity revealed. (J.K. Rowling was a ghost author originally; I believe.) If this author chose the name Allah, then Bob's your Uncle! Not proof of Allah, certainly not of a God called Allah.

TO conclude:
You use Allah to prove himself (see my previous post and above) - which isn't logic.
You presume that two examples of scripture that can be misinterpreted constitutes proof for the whole Quran as scientific accuracy. Not logic.
You take the eloquence of the Quran to proof the existence of Allah as a God instead of, say, Allah as a ghost author. I agree that it's eloquent but, sadly, this isn't logic.

Thank you for your post and I patiently wait your response and/or next argument.

Peace be upon you!


In the name of Allah. I would like to apologize that I proved God by using God. I sincerely apologize. I will begin by refuting what my opponent says about the Quran and Allah and then I will try to convince him of the existant of God Almighty.

So here we go again,
My opponent says that the verse I quoted can be misinterpreted and I agree because of my ignorance, I dint realize what was I quoting. I speak Arabic and what I found online and typed out for you to read is a wrong interpretation. ok here is the more reliable translation.
"Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass (ratqan), then We clove them asunder (fataqna)? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"
All right I hope that clears things up. I really don't mind if you do not believe I speak Arabic.
The next one about that expansion of the universe. I hope you speak English because what is the meaning of expander? If God(which you do not believe in) expands the heavens(universe),what is he called? THE EXPANDER...DUH??? Ok if you still doubt it, check this out.
"And the heaven We built with Our own powers (aydin) and indeed We go on expanding it (musi'un).". It couldn't get clearer than that.
How could anyone know of this fact 1400 years ago? However you said it was a fluke shot. Well, here's the thing if it is mentioned twice that the universe is expanding and no one knows of that fact at that time, its from God. You also said that it could be a misinterpretation. How could you interpret that in any other way. The Quran is not like the bible where it could be interpreted many ways.

The language beauty of the Quran. How could compare the text that was revealed 1400 years ago to a poetry that was created recently? You have to understand that you should only compare books at that era only. The Quran is the miracle of Islam because of the fact that it was the best book that was ever heard or recited at that time amongst all the poems and books known at that time.

I hope my arguments are sound and clear.

perhaps you can direct me to where you want this debate to go. you can asks some questions that I gladly will answer.

Other than that, I hope you really want to seek the truth and strive for it. be truthful and learn. don't be ignorant. this is wishing you luck not an argument.

peace be upon you too.
Debate Round No. 3


MysticEgg forfeited this round.


Freedom_Fighter-Irfan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


I apologise to my opponent for not posting an argument for round four; my Internet connection went down at my house and thus couldn't post anything. I see that my opponent has also forfeited round four. Whether he was also too busy or wanted to make it fairer for us; I don't know. In the first case, I can respect that; it happened to me too. In the second case, I sincerely thank you! Now before I make my closing statements, I would like to ask my opponent not to make any new arguments or new refutes in the last round - I will do the same. I understand I didn't mention this before; and for that I apologise. This was the first debate I started and I was an absolute rookie. Now I will make my closing statements.

I would like to recap my previous arguments. In round two I argued that the idea of something coming from nothing has to be true (although since I cannot make any new arguments - I'm kicking myself. I could refine this greatly) in order for Allah to exist. If Allah is eternal, why can't the Universe be eternal? My opponent, instead of addressing the question, repeated
his argument from round one of "If something couldn't come from nothing, then where does the Big Bang come from?" and then goes on to (apparently) assume that Allah is the exception for no given reason.

My opponent argues that certain scientific events are described in the Quran. I argue that they could be misinterpreted and were very much down to a matter of opinion as to what they were describing. (For example, my opponent assumes here that Heaven(s) = the Universe. It could mean - the Heavens, as in paradise.) Also, this appears to use God to prove God, which my opponent consented to.

My opponent also uses language beauty. While my opponent and I both agreed that the Quran is (in parts) very well written; this does not constitute evidence.
I cannot make any new arguments or refutes, so I have to leave this as that. Therefore, this concludes my case for this debate.

Let me say that this has been a huge pleasure debating with my opponent, Freedom_Fighter_Irfan, and I hope that he thinks the same. Many thanks!


Freedom_Fighter-Irfan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by MysticEgg 5 years ago
Sorry, I had no internet for a week so my account was effectively frozen. However, I see that my opponent has also failed to respond within the specified time limit; what happens now?
Posted by thg 5 years ago
Perhaps I should wait for your opponent to post his/her first round, but I just can't wait to make a comment... I'd love to accept this debate challenge, except for one little problem...I agree with your initial premise. But I believe your lines of reasoning are seriously flawed. So I'll read this debate with interest, but it will be interesting to see who ends up winning, as I believe it is nigh impossible to argue the PRO side.

Perhaps you (CON) can strengthen your side. My suggestion would be that you drop the line of reasoning that suggests taking the Bible metaphorically at certain places is "illogical". Why? A mix of metaphor and more direct phenomenological experience...a mix of propositional and non-propositional common to all of life's experiences. Pretty much every work of literature out there (especially works of non-fiction) contain a mix of literal and figurative language. Go to any library and look up biographies, and you will find material that is mostly intended to be taken literally (though there's plenty of metaphor included), then walk across the aisle to poetry or sci-fi, and you'll find a lot of material that is full of metaphor. The Bible actually is more a collection of works than a single book, so it really is more like a library. It contains all kinds of literature, including figurative and literal material. So, taking some parts of the Bible literally and some parts figuratively is not only logical, it is the only way to really understand its contents with any semblance of accuracy

I'd be happy to debate you on a related topic (say, whether or not the Bible should be taken literally, etc.), but, again, as I agree with your initial premise, I cannot accept this debate challenge as you've phrased it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: How does this work, Con was the first to forfeit and then Pro did the same then Con returned to argue but it was a no show from Pro n the end. In any case Pro mixed the resolution up and defended the Koran instead, which doesn't include the full account of genesis. Although I don't think Con argued well by saying the predictions of the Koran concerning the big bang were simply guess work and thus effective enough to discredit them, also the accusation of quote mining was irrelevant if the texts actually matched scientific data.. apart from this I think Con argued better and of course retuned to the debate finally with an apology to which Pro gave a no show. In all the resolution stands as a negative from the content I gathered from this debate