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

God Does Not Exist

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
PsychoScientist has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 669 times Debate No: 97995
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)




Hello, welcome to this debate. Here, we will be debating whether the Christian God is real or non-existent. I will be debating against it's existence, my opponent will obviously be doing otherwise.

If you wish to debate against me, you will have to follow the following rules:

- Insults, direct or indirect, are strictly prohibited.

- No sources are needed, however, if you believe that any argument posted here is false, you will need to prove it, with a source.

- Be organized, something very important is that both of us can understand what we are saying.

Now, the debate structure is quite simple. The first round is used solely for the purpose of acceptance to the debate. The second round will consist of opening statements and rebuttals, if necessary.


Thanks for the debate opportunity!

I was just asked if I have an interest in apologetics - so, I suppose this is as good a chance as any to figure it out.

Accepting this Debate - with the Following Understanding (If Permitted) :

1. Arguments that depend on fallacies will be avoided by both parties - they don't really seem to have merit! (e.g., "The Christian God must not exist because he is bad" - is not remotely a valid argument, and a waste of time).

That my Definitions are a "Reasonable Representation" of Christian theology - based on Judeo-Christian Scriptures :

"God" - The "Most High" - Transcendent of this Causal domain.
3. "God of Scripture" - "God" (see #3); Self declaring to be: "True" (trustworthy); "Just"; and "Loving" - in view of eternity. The Father of Humanity - the one Jesus claimed to have submitted to.
4. "Christian" Defined: A disciple of Jesus, (a "Hebrew Jew" - though a Political dissident from Pharasaic/Rabbinical and Sadducean Judaism). Specifically - an individual that pursues the imitation of Jesus by pursuing understanding of his commandments - to follow them.

Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting my debate. I hope we both learn from this.

Now, I will proceed with my opening statements:

Young Earth Creationism

"Young Earth Creationism" is the religious belief that the Earth, and the universe, originate directly from acts of a divine being, and also the belief that the world was created less than ten-thousand years ago. The Genesis book, of the Bible, is based on creationism. The strongest argument that can refute creationism, is the fact that we have discovered remains of ancient extinct creatures, that can date back from thousands to millions of years. From this scientific evidence, it is obvious that the world was not created a mere ten-thousand years ago.

The Bible

The Bible has been proved to have numerous contradictions. Logically, if two statements contradict each other, then one or both of the statements are false. Thus making the Bible unreliable. It is very common for the Bible to say something, and then say another. For example, in Matthew, it is said that Jesus' family moved out of Bethlehem and were on their way to Egypt, immediately. However, in Luke, it is said that Mary stayed in Bethlehem for her purification (forty days), and then went on their way back to Jerusalem.


Evolution is science. It theorizes how animals came to be, a long time ago. It might sound unrealistic, however, it would make more sense to believe this method, than to believe that a divine being, created the universe. Evolution is backed by observations and evidence, while creationism is backed by almost no evidence, hence the reason why it is pseudoscience. What creationists usually do, is ignore all the evidence that is against their beliefs and focus on what they want to believe.

Jesus Christ

It has been widely questioned the existence of Jesus Christ for a long time. You may know it or not, however, Jesus Christ can assimilate to many Gods that may or may not have been invented, hundreds of years before. For example, Perseus, the greek demi-god, was born of a divine father and a mortal mother, just like Jesus. Asklepios, was the greek god of health and medicine, he was once known as "the saviour". Hercules was also born of a mortal mother and divine father, and was known as the saviour of the world.

Remember that all these characters were made up hundreds of years before Jesus was supposedly born. Thus making Jesus a possible fictional character, just like the ones mentioned before.

These are my opening statements, my opponent may present his opening statements, or rebuttals in the next round.

Vote Pro


@R2.Pro.1 & 3 - Young Earth Creationism / Creationism & Evolution:

This literally - has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of Christianity. There is nothing in either Jewish or Christian texts - that demand a literal belief in the Genesis 1 Creating Narrative.

In Genesis 1 : A day wasn't even "reckoned" relative to the Sun - until the 4th day. The text is arguably metaphorical.

As for traditions that demand this kind of understanding - it is irrelevant. Even Jesus emphasized the issue with relying on tradition, and intellectualism of men.

As for "Arguing Against Creationism - Generally" - this is an archaic idea. Humanity has access to Biological Engineering, Quantum Mechanics, Nano-Technology, Interesting Philosophies - and beginning to create virtual worlds - in just a fraction of time of the Universe's apparent age. Can you imagine what a civilization could do in BILLIONS of years? No - Creationism is certainly plausible.

In Re. Evolution - Genesis 1 states that God created man from the dust of the Earth, (which is plausible). It does not say HOW. There is no mention of a potter's wheel - or some "star-trekkien glow" that happened as God breathed into Adam.

Hmm ... Actually, The implausible part is that we WOULDN'T do it in 6 days - and that we wait around 7 billion years as we created something. HAH.

@R2.Pro.2 - Regarding the Authenticity of the Bible :

The very first Christians, (Jews) neither had the New Testament - or even a reasonable "Old Testament".

In fact - Early Christian/Jewish apologetics exclusively appealed to rationality, and eye-witness reporting. In Jeremiah 31:31 - the New Covenant was to be exclusively written on the "Hearts of Men" - and was to have nothing to do with written pages. The "Bible" was only constructed hundreds of years after Jesus.

@R2.Pro.3 - Regarding the Supposed Significance of Jesus -

Similarities between Obama, Lincoln, and Washington - don't have any effect on whether Julius Caesar existed, or not.

And no, even Jews of that period - and Romans, didn't question Jesus' existence. The Jews didn't even question the miracles! (c.f. Maimonides' Epistle to Yemen). Many people were called, "the Son of God", in Scripture.

@R2.Con.1 - Jesus' Actual Significance :

I know I don't really have the "Burden of Proof" here - but come on, those arguments ^^ have no real implication on the Christian Faith - in general.

The "Significance" of Jesus - had nothing to do with Jesus, himself. It had to do with God making a point :

Ezekiel 39:21 - “And I will set My glory among the nations; and all the nations will see My judgment which I have executed and My hand which I have laid on them.

Chrisitanity believes - based on every narrative from Genesis to Jesus, that : God tried - over and over again, to appeal to all nations, to

Micah 6:8 - "Do Justice, Show Mercy, Walk humbly Before your God" ...

That, God never desired the immoral / injust / or wicked to perish - but to live. That all people - who were at some point vulnerable - should remember their own vulnerability, and judge with mercy. That mercy triumphs over judgment.

And so God proved - beyond any reasonable doubt ... that the most noble laws that man could come up with - "Judaism", "Roman", etc - could, and will - always end in death and never give life.

So - from a Christian point of view - every point in your argument has less than zero merit.

Unless you address the merit of God's "supposed" judgment - that he rendered before all nations - then those arguments will never, ever, lead anywhere.

The point is - Christianity, The "God of Christianity" - is virtually unassailable - unless this one - core - tent of the Christian faith is proven false :

Christian's appeal to the unconditional mercy demonstrated when Jesus advocated - unconditionally - even for the people torturing him - from a cross.

They believe that this kind of mercy triumphs over judgment. "I desire mercy, not punishment." Israel, and every other nation got this wrong - and STILL do. For example : look at our prison systems, death penalties - there is no life, no peace, no true "relief/justice" in it - prison does not necessarily reconcile people.

And Reason Demands : You cannot hope to appeal to this kind of mercy - before God - unless you demonstrate it yourself.

This is Christianity.

Vote CON! Wait - are we allowed to campaign in argument ???? :D
Debate Round No. 2


I thank my opponent for his well constructed arguments.

There are some things I have to address, however, first I have to make something clear. "Faith" is not scientific, it is based on personal beliefs, and therefore, is not something that we can use as evidence. When I made this debate, I made it clear that the debate was about the existence of the christian God, not christianity's validity.

Another thing I would like to clarify, is that my arguments are based on actual evidence, reason, and science, and certainly not with Bible passages or faith. They were never meant to mean something from a christian point of view.

The Existence of Jesus Christ

Do you know what is the difference between the three leaders you mentioned (Obama, Lincoln, Washington and Julius Cesar), and the greek gods that I mentioned (Perseus, Hercules, and Asklepios)?

The difference is that there is actual evidence that these leaders did exist, while the greek gods are all mythological. This is what makes your example invalid. Remember that all these characters were invented before Jesus' supposed birth, therefore, there is an overwhelming posibility that Jesus was also invented.

Also, remember that there is absolutely no evidence that Jesus ever existed.

There is a writer named John E. Remsburg, which published a book that listed many historians/writers that existed at the supposed time of Jesus. He mentioned this:

"Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ."

This book listed 21 historians/writers that were known to exist at the time. I believe that will all the miracles that he supposedly pulled off, someone would have said something.

We were never supposed to debate his significance, rather, his existence. You provided Bible verses and everything about the supposed "significance" of Jesus, all of which fail to refute why Jesus did actually exist. It basically speaks about a "humble and loving" God.

The Supernatural Biblical Events

These are one of the main reasons of why the Bible is fiction. The Bible mentions events that totally go against reason. It sounds more like fairy tales if you ask me.

The Bible mentions a river turning to blood, water coming from a rock, water turning to wine, rods turning into snakes, resurrection, a huge lake literally divided into two, a man coming into existence from dust (which is plausibe according to my opponent), a voice coming from a burning bush, a human being in the stomach of a fish for three days and numerous other things that christians are made to believe.

Cruelty of God

This also wasn't originally meant to be on the debate, however, you've forced me to bring it up.

Here are some things that some people unknowingly call "good work".

1. Cursed the entire human race for the mistakes of two people.
2. Killed women, children and men at the time of the flood.
3. Sent the israelites to eliminate all the people from seven nations to conquer their land.
4. Promised to send everyone who is not Christian to eternal torture. (Apparently it doesn't matter if you're good or bad.)
5. Ordered numerous slaugthers in the Old Testament.

"This is Christianity."

Authenticity of the Bible

You never refuted my arguments about the contradictions of the Bible, therefore they still stand.

Remember that many things said in the Bible contradict themselves, therefore, one or both can be false. The Bible is unreliable.

My arguments were made to argue about the existence of the Christian God with evidence, not faith or the Bible itself.

Christianity might sometimes represent positiveness, however it also can represent cruelty.


R3.Con.1 - Perhaps the God of Christanity doesn't Actually Exist - but not For your Reasons :

Peter was a fisherman. The very first Christians were anti-phrasaic Jews. So - perhaps it is just my lack of knowledge - but any "lofty" argument from cosmology, etc - is analogous to appealing to magic - relatively.

So, any argument against - must make sense - be rational, (Isaiah 1:18), must be just, and life-giving. (The Way, Truth, Life, long-story.)

So - if you are going to argue against the existence of any God - it should be at least be Rational :
1. God is bad : Ad Hominem, Misrepresentation.
2. Not Good Historical Records : Argument from Silence / Ignorance;
3. It seems like a fairy tale : Argument to absuridity.
4. That and that are alike, that's not true - so that other must not be true : Genetic Fallacy
5. etc, etc....

None of those arguments are actually valid, appealing to sound reason.

R3.Con.2 - How to Actually Disprove Christianity :
1. Christianity claims the God of Moses;
2. For a Jew - disproving Christianity - has zero effect on the existence of God.
3. Disproving both Judaism and Christianity - does not rule out the plausibility of there being a God.

But -
1. Christianity asserts that "Christ is the Wisdom of God", (1 Corinthians 1:24).
2. Christians appeal to God's mercy and desperation for humanity regardless of their moral standards and wrongdoing, (the entire book of Job).
2. Further, Christianity asserts that it would be a gross-misrepresentation of God to assert that God desires the wicked to perish, rather than have life, (cmp. Ezekiel 16, et al. vs. Noah's Flood, and Sodom, etc).
3. So : If Jesus' existence is disproven : then it is disproven that God actually "set the record straight" and demonstrated what "True Justice and Wisdom is" to the whole earth, (the spectacle of unconditional advocacy from the cross; Col 2:15).
4. Proving that God has not shown nations what true justice is - would be to disprove that God is desperately advocating for all nations, all people - and would disprove that God actually had rejected the evil that Israel had been doing from the very beginning, (Ezekiel 20).
5. Proving that God never objected to Israel's evil - would be to prove that God of Scripture is not benevolent.
6. Proving that the God of Scripture is not actually benevolent - is disproving Christianity.

Disproving the validity in any one of those premises would invalidate the entire world-view.

R3.Con.3 - Argument from Reason : "Moving the Goal Post" - What is the Standard of Evidence that a Historical Person Existed?

In Re.R3.Pro - Also, remember that there is absolutely no evidence that Jesus ever existed.

1. Even contemporary Pharasaic and Rabbinic Judaism are certain that Jesus existed, and documented it - historically - and that's saying a lot. They wouldn't even refute his miracles, (see Maimonides' letter to Yemen).
2. You tell me : What is the standard of proof - to validate the probability that an ancient historical figure existed, or not.
3. What is the standard of proof - that would validate conclusively, that historical figures existed? Did Socrates exist? How about Hillel I? King Solomon? How do you know?

Your argument is invalid - because it seems to appeal to a double standard - that you haven't even defined, (yet?).

Now legally - in court - today, the testimony of witnesses is sufficient as a standard of proof for matters MUCH more significant. Multiple witnesses - today - is a standard of proof that is more than sufficient, for example, when describing an individual that robbed a store.

Although Jesus' existence does not either proof or disprove God - I do believe that the "God of the Bible" cannot be proven - without also proving the existence of Jesus / the Messiah. So, I can accept the relevance of the question - in this context.

In Re.R3.Pro - "... Remember that all these characters were invented before Jesus' supposed birth, therefore, there is an overwhelming posibility that Jesus was also invented."

I will rephrase - The argument is without merit - to conclude someone did not exist - simply because they shared qualities with multiple fictitious characters created before they lived. It is non-sequitor.

You are appealing to a werd form of "Guilt by Association" fallacy - when doesn't entail anything meaningful.

But - even so. Vedic and Zorastrian theology, (the Medes, and Magi) also apparently prophecied the Messiah - which plausibly served as the basis for even the Greek mythos.

In Re.R3.Pro - John E. Remsburg's that Jesus was never Mentioned Historically :

1. Fundamentally - this is an irrational argument - an argument from ignorance / silence - and without merit from the get-go. You are putting words into the author's mouth - he is not saying that his observations PROVE anything - only that they advise "cautious skepticism".
2. The author appears to be citing Greco-Roman literature, (perhaps Josephus), not acknowledging the massive amount of Aramaic literature, (see Armenian Church; Aramaic; and Syriac Manuscripts).
3. The historical record itself was distorted, destroyed, not prioritized, or lost to the elements. Example: The Pharasaic and Rabbinic Jews went on a rampage - exterminating any rejection to their authority, (see the Mishneh Torah, etc).

No matter how you spin these premises - they do not lend to a deductive / certain conclusion.

In Re.R3.Pro - "The Bible mentions events that totally go against reason. It sounds more like fairy tales if you ask me."

This is an irrational argument, appealing to humanity's own ignorance - lack of scientific development.

Today, let alone in 100 years, there is no reason to believe humanity could not perform those "miracles" without sufficient technology.

The entire premise that : "It is infantile to believe there is a God" is archaic, (literally) - and completely dismissive of our own reality :

Given our level of science - even /we/ are becoming Gods. It is absurd to posit that other civilizations exist in the universe, and could have existed for millions of years longer - and are not able to perform miracles similarly.

Regardless - Your opinion is subjective, unscientific, and irrational - and so does not lend any value to proving anything conclusively.

In Re. R3.Pro - "Cruelty of God : This also wasn't originally meant to be on the debate, however, you've forced me to bring it up."

This is an irrational argument. Even showing that "God is Cruel", is proving that "God is".

Regardless, it seems to ultimately appeal to ad-hominem/non-authority - judging actions as "immoral" without understanding consequences in view of eternity.

In Re R3.Pro - Authenticity of the Bible :

The existence of God - cannot possibly be contingent on whether there are "contradictions" in the Bible.

You are challenging Christianity by questioning the authenticity of a Bible that didn't even exist - at the time; never mind the fact that Greeks who had no knowledge of Jewish texts accepted Jesus - strictly on Philosophical grounds!

1. The New Testament didn't even exist when Christianity began - Christianity absolutely doesn't require it.
2. Jews - at that time - didn't even have a "Tanakh", (Hebrew Bible) - but relied on Aramaic translations, and books like Isaiah, Enoch, Psalms, etc.
3. Ezekiel 20: very explicitly states that a bunch of bad was injected in the texts / law.
4. Jeremiah 33 : explicitly states that the Christian faith would rely on a law written on "everyone's hearts" - that would be, (and is), known to everyone.

1 Corinthians 2:4 - and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.
Debate Round No. 3


I apologize. I will not be able to continue with our debate, due to a personal issue. However, this was a very interesting debate, and I would like to continue some other time.

I will challenge you when I sort this problem out.


In Re. R4.Pro - "I apologize. I will not be able to continue with our debate, due to a personal issue."

No worries - I completely understand real-life agro!

But, I feel that we were debating two completely different forms of Christianity; you would be much better off debating an "Academic Christian".

There is a distinction between the "Modern Academic Christian's Representation of God" ... and the "Scriptural Christian's Representation of God."

R4.Con.1 - The Distinction Between Academic and Scriptural Christianity :

I understand that there are Christian theologians, (William Lane Craig, Alistair McGrath, etc) - that represent Christianity this way.

And maybe - to those theologians, those arguments have merit. I will let one of those theologians have at you next time!

But - I suggest that Christianity was first - and foremost - to the Fishermen, the Poor, the Rejected, etc. And also, in THAT period - and in Israel today - Christianity was/is a Political Movement; (especially in regards to the power struggle between Pharisees and Saducees and the authority of the "Oral Law").

So Chrisitianity - at its heart - it is a political and philosophical revolution - that was (and still is) entirely independent of the authority of Scriptural texts, or even Miraculous power - Especially when it comes to non-Israeli's :

John 5:39 - You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;

1 Corinthians 1:22-25 - For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23 but we preach hrist crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

1 Corinthians 2:4-6 - and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. 6 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away;

R4.Con.2 - Maybe a Different Debate - Challenging Classic / Scriptural Christianity? :

Scriptural Christianity is an appeal to the poor, the needy, the orphans, the criminals, the blind, the gentile - as all equally esteemed by God.

And if you just so happen to fall into any of those categories, fully immersed into their plight - then it becomes understandable why the Christian "Representation of God" - either stands, or falls, on this one truth alone :

Matthew 12:7 - But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire compassion, and not [punishment],’ you would not have condemned the [wrongfully accused].

To the Christian - that is a YuUge Philosophical Statement / Truth.

Scripturally - it is what Jesus did at the cross - an uncoditional display of mercy, universally : that displayed the power and wisdom of God...

Not his miracles, not any texts, nothing else... just this one thing.

So - disproving "Jesus: as the Wisdom and Power of God" - would disprove the "Christian Representation of God".

Granted, disproving the "Christian Representation of God" - is not disproving the Jewish one - nor would it disprove the existence of an another "Actual God".

There are probably a lot of "qualified" people to talk about those "Academic Objections" to Jesus. But personally, I don't find them actually relevant to "Scriptural Christianity".

I would love a challenge regarding "Scriptural Christianity"; but, I am probably not the best representative of "Academic Christianity", (unless its for practice!).

And - Thanks for the debate! How does that work - It's a Tie, Right ??? :p
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by elikakohen 2 years ago
@the-voice-of-truth : "I feel that I could have argued Con so much better."

I am not really an apologist - just learning.

Though, Pro has taken it up to declare that "God does not Exist", certainly.

I would rather not waste time being "baited" into arguments that ultimately don't mean anything. If the arguments CAN be shown to be meaningful - then sure. But arguing that someone does or does not exist irrationally, is not constructive.

But then again - this is why I am not an apologist.
Posted by boozeandbabble 2 years ago
If God ain't for reals, then why people always talking about god?
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
I feel that I could have argued Con so much better.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
You do not use or need knowledge, truth or evidence for gods.
The only thing needed for gods to be real is belief.
Can perfect gods have wants, needs, and emotional desires?
The Christian god has to many descriptive failings and limiting attributes to be a perfect god.
Posted by XxFoxlordxX 2 years ago
To be honest, us christians have a pretty bad handicap here.
Posted by canis 2 years ago
"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."----Christopher Hitchens
( thanks to fred70 )
Posted by PsionicTurtle 2 years ago
The restriction is presumably to prevent new people from debating so that the challenger can have a more fair debate.
Posted by fred70 2 years ago
Cowardice duh!
Posted by toocoolblue 2 years ago
Why ask for a debate and then restrict who can accept it?
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.