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

God Chooses Life

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,154 times Debate No: 51505
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)




I do not believe god chooses life.
round one is for acceptance and opening statements.
My argument will be based on these topics:
1. BoP of existence of God
even if he existed, he did not create earth in six days the way the bible says he did. There is evidence of the big bang, so even if he created earth, he created the Big Bang....which would probably destroy himself in the process. "An action reacts with an equal reaction." says Newton's third law.
And even if the Big Bang itself did not destroy god, the energy spent on creating the Big Bang would destroy God!
2. How does God "choose"?
(definition: "pick out or select (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives.") (from google definition)
life definition: "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death."
3. Even if God "chooses life", how will he perform it?
(will he have to choose between fungi and virus...?)


I accept and state that God does choose life.
1. God is necessarily supernatural and therefore transcends the laws of nature. This is evidenced by His ability to perform miracles and have one or more of what are commonly known as "omni" qualities (i.e. omnipresent, omnipotent..).

2. The ability to choose is a supernatural ability and is therefore part of God's character. Human beings express this same supernatural ability as bestowed upon them by God. Otherwise, human beings could not choose otherwise because every action, thought, and feeling would be bound to the natural laws of chemistry and thus be inevitable, making choice impossible (for example, a plant does not choose to bend its leaves towards the sun - it has no choice but to bend its leaves towards the sun). Yet sufficient evidence exists that concludes with human beings performing this ability.

3. When accepting the fact that God is making a "decision" then by default His supernatural ability exists and thus He is able to perform whatever is His will. A human being's inability to observe God does not mean that God does not exist.

So as God has the option between life and "not-life" (death), as is implied by the Debate proposition, it becomes apparent that God would choose life. For it only through life that expression and choice may exist.
Debate Round No. 1


"feeling would be bound to the natural laws of chemistry and thus be inevitable, making choice impossible..." What? What do you mean? Feeling would be bound to...chemistry? Chemistry has almost NOTHING to do with feeling, except perhaps the brain releases a chemical that makes you feel a certain emotion.
How can he perform miracles? You have yet to give any evidence.
If God is truly "omnipotent"--
"almighty or infinite in power"
--then he does not have to create earth in 6 days. What? Six days? Six plank time is more like the correct calculation.
--then he does not have to rest for 24 hours. Seriously, that's an awful lot of time for a being who is "infinite in power".
Futhermore, God cannot be omnipresent, as you claim he is.
--if he was, why is he not present when Adam and Eve are just about to eat the apple?
--again, back to omnipotent, why does he have an evil snake in his garden? Can't he have a tree of wisdom that's pure good and all that stuff?
--He's ominipotent....which leads to the eventual conclusion that he's cruel, very cruel. He let the Civil War...okay, that's understandable. He let the Belgium-Congo Free State....8 million people died! Is he really that cruel to let so much people die? World War I-- 20 million....He's gotta stop now! World War II (55 million) including holocaust and Chinese revolution ....nope. He's cruel.
And I was only listing the Wars and Casualties of the 20th and 21st Centuries!
All in all, even if God can choose life, he ultimately let the world die even if the causalities are extremely high. It's the sad truth. (These are only wars, man, these are only wars! I'm not even scratching poverty, hunger, disease, or any other kind of death!)


1. "Feeling" is either completely biochemical or something else. If it is the former then my previous conclusion stands. If you accept the latter then my point is valid in as much as you recognize that the supernatural exists, thus making God more probable than not.

2. It is a common perception that God took 6 days to create the "world" in order to teach by example. As was proposed in such a famous debate known as the Scopes monkey trial [1], we learn that it is reasonable to assume that since "light" was not created until the second day [2] that any amount of finite time could have passed between the first day and the second day - as there was no solar orbit to measure an actual day. This idea is further supported by the notion that God rested on the 7th day. Since the source for this story recognizes that God surely would not need to "rest", it is reasonable to conlcude that God was setting an example to His creation - thus the sabbath, a day of rest.

3. The claim of God having "one or more" of the omni-qualities is supported by the Biblical text(s) which describe His nature and character [3].

4. God was present when the apple was eaten. His allowing this to happen is an affirmation of the "free-will" or ability to choose that He bestowed upon us. As much as it may have disappointed Him, He considered our ability to "choose" to be more important than His own preference. This is the basis for all commandments - they are opportunities for choice. Satan would otherwise prefer that everyone just be in a forced state of obedience with no ability to choose.[4]

5. Ironically, your sense of what is cruel and what is not cruel is based upon a Christian tradition that has permeated western civilization. Nevertheless, God is not beholden to your sense of justice [5] so to assume that His "cruelty" has any implication on His (or your) ability to choose is erroneous. God may well be considered cruel and still choose life.

6. While war and crime are certainly tragedies among men, they are a consequence of men's ability to choose...of men's ability to have life. Ultimately this is what God has chosen, He has chosen for us to have life, to have the choice. Much like a parent that instructs their child and eventually allows for them to "make their own decisions", God has given us this same experience - even when it disappoints Him, but like a parent He welcomes the child into His arms and would never take away that freedom of life away.

God chooses life, because life is is the freedom to choose, to make decisions for onesself, to have options. In death there is no choice, there is only bondage - it is an inescapable prison. This is consistent with the nature and character of God as described by countless scholars and laymen; and as supported by the Bible.
Not only can God choose...but time and time again, He chooses life.

Debate Round No. 2


For one, few scientific theories that explain that the paranormal isn't impossible.
You say God is omniscient and knows everything, including everything that has happened and will happen, as well as every thought your mind creates before you think it. If that's the case, there is no "free will."
You agreed with my statement "God is cruel". I will support it further. Let us assume God IS omniscient, okay? God can do anything but doesn't lift a finger to stop all the disasters, massacres and wars that have happened, are happening now and will happen in the future, their God is also a psychopath who enjoys watching our misery. However, if the Christian God is not omniscient or omnipotent... well, in that case the God is not a "god" and doesn't exist.

In addition, If something exists, it can be scientifically quantified (measured and evaluated relative to its mass, energy, location, capabilities, and other qualities). For example, scientists have quantified millions of items ranging from from dark holes in outer space to tiny atomic particles (such as the recently discovered Higgs Boson). If something cannot be scientifically quantified, it does not exist (in the real universe).

Spiritual entities such as gods, devils, heavens, hells, angles, the tooth fairy, etc. have never been and cannot be scientifically quantified. Therefore these spiritual items do not exist (except in the imagination of religious individuals).

1. to have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not.

to have life or animation; live.

to continue to be or live: Belief in magic still exists.

to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur: Hunger exists in manyparts of the world.

to achieve the basic needs of existence, as food and shelter: He's not living, he's merely existing.

If you are still not convinced, please visit this website:
It shows 50 ways to prove that god doesn't exist. If you are too lazy to visit them one by one, let me sum up the important points.

--praying does not work. In Matthew 7:7 Jesus says"every one who asks receives", and If "our Father who is in heaven gives good things to those who ask him", then if we ask him to cure cancer, he should cure it. Right? But as hard and mighty as we really try, it will not happen!

--There is no scientific evidence. As I said, if he wishes to stay anonymous I respect his choice, but doing nothing in response to all these bad things happening? That's just cruel. If there really was a God, he's horrible, evil, should not be believed in, and does not choose life.
As said by the same exact source on;
  • "God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth."
  • "None of Jesus' "miracles" left any physical evidence either. (see this page)"
  • "God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.'
  • "The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone. (see this page)'
  • "The Bible we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God. (see this page)"
  • "When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers." (see this page)"
  • "Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God."
  • "And so on…"

I think that'll be enough for you to ponder over.



1. "For one, few scientific theories that explain that the paranormal isn't impossible."
paranormal?...and no one is claiming, here, that the paranormal is possible or impossible.
If you are trying to introduce a new topic, please start another debate. I have spoken only about the supernatural, as in "unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature....of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil [1].

2. "...every thought your mind creates before you think it. If that's the case, there is no "free will.""
Having the knowledge of the future does not imply having control over that future. Just because God may "know" what choice you are going to make does not prevent you from freely making that choice.
Here is a really simple example - let us assme you are a normal person and are thirsty. You have a choice to drink between a glass of refreshing water and a glass full of sand. I know you will choose water, but the choice is still yours to make - my knowledge of that choice has no influence on your choice.

3. "God can do anything but doesn't lift a finger to stop all the disasters, massacres and wars..."
There is an obvious implication here, and that is for free will. Just because we have free will does not mean we are free from the consequences of our choices. However, the simplest reason for you to understand why God "allows" for bad things to happen is that it is part of having the freedom to choose. For if God were to stop the "bad" then He must surely stop all the bad...stop war, stop thievery, stop lies....and even stop bad thoughts...this is contrary to the notion of free will...contrary to the notion of life, and therefore God chooses free will...and more importantly chooses life.
Also, it is consistent with the characer and nature of God to be beyond our human understanding, to be beyond accountability to us. Just a child is unable to punish their parent, or to "ground" their parent from vide games.

4. "In addition, If something exists, it can be scientifically quantified..."
This is an ambituous claim by Con, but unsupported. Science, by its very nature, is unable to prove anything.
"There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything."[2]
Science cannot quantify laughter or heartbreak, but they exist. Science cannot quantify the satisfaction of helping the needy or the value of a friendship - but all of these exist.
Nevertheless, the lack of evidence does not conclude with the lack of existence.
Your proposition here is commonly known as an argument form ignorance or one of personal incredulity [3].

5. "--praying does not work. In Matthew 7:7 Jesus says"every one who asks receives"..."
God's covenant for prayer does not imply that you will get exactly what you ask for (i.e. a stack of gold). This is a basic tenet in Christian faith. That God answers prayers, but you may not receive what you want or when you want it.
(see also my response #3 above)

6. "
I think that'll be enough for you to ponder over."
arrogance is no substitution for a good and reasonable argument.

Debate Round No. 3


Oh god this is a difficult debate. My points are much too flimsy and you countered them all.
It looks like you win....
I will give one. Last. Point.
One word: Glimbozonous.
Glimbozonous is the name of my religion: I believe....approximately 15 billion years ago...there was nothing. Nothing at all. But as the environment cannot be forever like this, based on the quantum mechanics that "if something can happen, no matter how unlikely the chances are, it is bound to happen sometime." So, something happened, something of such a small chance of happening that it took a billion years for it to happen--energy was somehow created from "nothing." (string and quantum foam, or whatever keeps the universe hanging and not dropping down) A billion years passed, and because so much potential energy was made, This energy is not normal--it has a sense of consciousness within it. It took the shape and form of what Christians know as "God". Because of its consciousness it created earth, (basic) life, and etc. etc. in merely six planck time similar to how god created earth in six days.
However, because each reaction has an equal reaction, this glimbo energy lost most of its consciousness, and became pure energy.
A billion years passed, and the pure energy became very very massive within a condensed space, and because such, it collapsed upon itself and created....
However, not all of its consciousness is lost. It is spread around the universe, and the energy explains "good luck", and how there are so many unique species and animals in the world.
That is my theory. It manages to explain where the Big Bang came from, why our planet Earth is the only planet Earth around, and how humans have a unique balance and choice.
It also explains why god is so cruel--even if god tried to stop the wars, diseases, famine, and etc. etc., he cannot, because he has not enough energy.
What is keeping us from assuming it is not God himself, but God's consciousness that has helped us all? What if, God doesn't choose life or death, rather, his consciousness helps us decide? Nothing has yet to prove that my belief in Glimbozonous in incorrect.
In conclusion it is not god who chooses life, but God's left consciousness from creating the earth.
I'm sorry if you think it's too late to come up with this point, but I just thought of this. Terribly sorry about the fact that you only have one round to rebut and conclude.
Good debate anyways.



Con's last post was correct...but for only the first two sentences.

Con has attempted to substitute fantasy for a theory. A theory is not pure imagination, it relies on modest amounts of reason and some evidence. Speculation is the best description offered for what Con has provided, and that description is generous.
Con's "theory" is not rationally satisfying, whereas the cosmological, teleological, moral, and philosophical arguments that have historically been provided for the existence of God are rationally satisfying.
(i.e. there is no rational reason to conclude that God and His consciousness are seperated).
Invoking an intelligent cause (God) is not arbitrary, whereas Con's "theory" is.

Con has proposed a "theory" that is tantamount to the analogy offered Bertrand Russell's teapot [1] ( i say proposed instead of plagiarized, because Con likely is unaware of this analogy). Basically, Con is repeating his/her previous error of personal incedulity - or arguing from ignorance.

While i appreciate Con's veracity, one must consider this debate not on the grounds of possible, but on the grounds of probable. Which position has more evidence, more scholarship, more opinion, more rationale, and more reason than the other? Sure it may be possible that a teapot is flying around in space, but is it probable?
While Pro may not have proven the existence of God beyond the shadow of a doubt, Con has certainy not proven anything with regards to Con's "theory". Are we to assume that God's consciousness exists ouside of and possible in conflict with God? huh?

Nevertheless, Con's attempt to distinguish God from God's consciouness falls short and really just affirms that the original premise is true - that God chooses life.


Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Actionsspeak 7 years ago
Just to be fair Con make a entirely new borderline troll argument in the final round.
Posted by Owlz 7 years ago
Nevermind. I figured it out.
Posted by Owlz 7 years ago
Speaking of "GodchoosesLife", does anyone know what happened to her? Did she get banned or something? I completely missed it.
Posted by ESocialBookworm 7 years ago
I thought this was on the account Godchooseslife...
Posted by Valtin 7 years ago
And also says that God abides to Human laws, when he is out of scope of time and space, applying Human laws to God is just illogical.
Posted by Valtin 7 years ago
Arguments on Con side are weak, If God intercedes and stops wars from happening that would violate free-will, and he includes the God of Christianity not God in general, he should have changed the debate into "God of Christianity chooses Life"
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Darklordcomp 7 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 
Reasons for voting decision: good job
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 7 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro won, and I love the conclusion "Con's attempt to distinguish God from God's consciouness falls short and really just affirms that the original premise is true - that God chooses life."
Vote Placed by Haroush 7 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 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe both Con and Pro made some great arguments. The difference was Pro had an edge on Con when it came to the philosophical and theoretical arguments. Furthermore, Pro maintained his argument against Con's argument the entire time staying on point.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.