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

God is Real

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
CrypticIndividual 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: 9/5/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,234 times Debate No: 103804
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (0)




There has been a lot of evidence that proves the reliability of the bible.

First, although this does not prove other religions wrong, it is more logical to be an Agnostic than an Atheist. The fine-tuning theory has been debunked, yet there is still more to it. You can assume that we are just a lucky species that happened to be on the right planet for our needs, but to say that that is the only factor of this life that must have been really dependent on luck is unreasonable. Every animal on this Earth happens to reproduce, and in the same way. Every animal also needs to breathe, usually in a universe based on luck that sort of thing wouldn't happen. And, finally, I will conclude this at the excretory system which is very similar for every animal.

Another thing is that there have been many Christian prophecies that have happened just as expected. For example:

"...This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years. But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation, the land of the Babylonians, for their guilt," declares the Lord, "and will make it desolate forever."

There are many more of these, and I don't want to fill my argument with all of them, but it is certainly unlikely for all of this to be based on chance.

Good luck.


There has been a lot of evidence that proves the bible is not only unreliable, but also internally inconsistent (see

The God of the bible has characteristics that make it logically inconsistent too. For example God is referred in the Bible as Almighty, meaning, according to scholars that he is omnipotent, yet he cannot lie (Titus 1:2). And yet in Jeremiah 20:7, he complains to be deceived by God.

The latest edits of Jeremiah are dated in the 2nd century BC, this means that the prophecy could have be written well after it happened. Although it was written probably by Deuteronomist in the 6th century BC because of their greater enphasis on the prophetic aspect of the book.

So of course some prophecies in the Bible are not based on chance, they are based on facts happened in the past. So they are not real prophecies are they?

All this really does nothing to prove the truth of the theme of the debate "God is real" but I wanted to get it out of the way anyways.

So basically I have no argument for this round because no evidence for the claim was presented.
Debate Round No. 1


For your first argument, the word "deceived" was just out of anger, as he was complaining. It was not God who told him to use that word to describe it, but if you read further on, you would see that no deception took place. You can not take a few words from the bible and claim it is a contradiction without understanding the context.

Some of the prophecies have been recorded and people have been able to find out the time it was recorded.

If you want an example of this then read this:


So according to you the God of the bible cannot lie. So it is not almighty. So the bible is not reliable.

The dead scrolls have very vague prophecies, as a matter of fact they are so vague that Jews, which believe in them, are still waiting for them to be fullfilled.

Debate Round No. 2


Now you are putting words into my mouth. Again, it was not God that used the phrase "can not lie," it is just people's way of describing that he hasn't ever lied. Besides, you don't prove god doesn't exist by testing our understanding of omnipotence. Also, you ignored my fine-tuning argument completely when you made your argument on the first round.

"Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.""

If you have read the bible it should come as no surprise to you that this is talking about Jesus, and it is documented that Jesus existed.


No, the bible explicitly says that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2). Since the bible is the word of God, God said that he cannot lie.
I’m not trying to prove that God doesn’t exist, I’m just trying to disprove that he exists, or in other words, I’m arguing against the validity of the claim "God is Real".
I was also not testing our understanding of omnipotence, just pointing out the apparent contradiction in the Bible: God can do anything, God cannot lie.
I ignored the your fine-tuning argument because you said it was already debunked. But even if the fine-tuning argument was sound, it does nothing to prove that God is Real. If the universe is fine tuned, maybe Allah did it, or maybe Krishna, most probably the GSM or Russel’s celestial teapot. This is not even related to the bible so I’ll dismiss it.
Beside this, the fine-tuning argument is not sound, but the particular way in which you presented it doesn’t make much sense to me. You said:
  • Every animal needs to breathe, true
  • Usually in a universe based on luck this would not happen, also true
So? For the same token it would be very improbable for me to win the lottery tomorrow, yet someone will win the lottery. Improbable doesn’t mean impossible.
Furthermore what about the other 99,999...% of the universe? Was that fine-tuned too to be deadly? But again, proving this will lead you nowere so why bother, still please explain to me why you like animals so much and completely disregard bacteria, fungi, plants and viruses.
About the Dead Sea Scrolls, I don’t believe in Jesus so to me it’s just a story retrofitted to conform to as much prophecies as possible, but please ask the Jews (who really believe in this nonsense) why they think Isaiah and other prophets are talking about Israel and not Jesus. At any rate, remember that a true prophecy must have the following characteristic:
  1. It must predict something not obvious
  2. It must be precise and not ambiguos
  3. It must be improbable
In your case Isaiah is clearly talking about the nation of Israel so if it was a prophecy it would at least lack number (2) as it’s not clear what he is predicting. The fact that it was quoted in Matthew to fulfill the prophecy doesn't prove much.
But let’s say it was really a prophecy and it was really fulfilled Simon bar Kokhba is a far more compelling choice. He definitely carried all the sorrows of his fellow Jews, he was wounded by hebrew trasgressors (samaritans), but thaks to his sacrifice he finally declared a new Jewish state to protect all the Jews.
Debate Round No. 3


"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;"
I do not know if you were serious when making that point. First of all, God is defined as omnipotent by people, not by his own word, it could be true that he is not able to lie and that omnipotent is not the best way to describe him as it is would not make sense because of him not being able to lie, but don't take words that humans give God too seriously. In the Bible and regular Christian conversation, there are some words or phrases given to describe God in a way that could help you understand God's actions better. With that logic, I am also able to come to the conclusion that what that part of Titus 1:2 said is just the way that he can best describe God so that people would be able to understand that God chooses not to lie, which I believe is the truth. No matter which way you look at this, it is able to be explained.

Also, if you were to look at my fine-tuning argument again, you would have seen that I said:
"First, although this does not prove other religions wrong,"
Meaning that I acknowledged it did not prove Christianity to be correct and followed it with this:
"it is more logical to be an Agnostic than an Atheist."
Meaning that I was clearly just pointing out how the idea of Atheism wasn't logical to to have faith in, as it is unlikely.
I do take the blame for not making it clear that I was trying to expand on what most Christian debaters consider the fine-tuning theory because I posted this:
"The fine-tuning theory has been debunked, yet there is still more to it."
Rather than something much more clear like this:
"The fine-tuning theory has been debunked, yet the idea can still be used as evidence against Atheism."
Which I will do in future scenarios.

As you can see on this page:
There is a good amount of evidence that Jesus existed, but not any clear evidence of what really happened.

About the prophecies, it would make sense if there were not more prophecies that all seem to represent Jesus.

"For He will honor the pious upon the throne of His eternal kingdom, release the captives, open the eyes of the blind, lifting up those who are oppressed" For He shall heal the critically wounded, He shall raise the dead, He shall bring good news to the poor."

It would probably seem made up until you compare it to this:

"Go tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have the good news brought to them."

Which you can see in Luke 7:21-22.


So God chooses not to lie, yet he deceive people. There are other examples, like Thessalonians 2:11.

You just repeated your point on fine-tuning. I already explained how it’s not a sound argument.
To make things easier I will make an analogy. Take a puddle in a hole. The puddle is created perfectly to fit the hole by God of the Puddles. The hole was created perfectly to welcome the puddle. At their interface, the puddle and the hole meet each other perfectly. Does this sound like a reasonable explanation? Isn’t more rational to say that when we weren’t there the hole was empty and the rain filled the hole? Of course we will never know for sure, we weren’t there when it happened, still, what explanation is more plausible. And if you are going for the God of the Puddles, isn't just as absurd as the God of the Holes? Even if we never saw the rain, isn’t it more logical to be atheist since there is no proof for a God of the Puddles? (and a God of the Holes for that matter)

Also you wrote more fullfilment to prophecies that were ment to mean something else, the suffering of Israel in this case.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 21 through 25 records.
Posted by CrypticIndividual 3 years ago
Either way, I am new to debating, so I am probably doing many things wrong.
Posted by CrypticIndividual 3 years ago
Surgeon, if you believe there is a lot wrong with Christianity, then either say what is wrong or join the debate.

Perussi, I do not entirely see how you would know if I am able to argue the fine-tuning argument, but okay.
Posted by Surgeon 3 years ago
There is so much wrong with the thought processes of xtianity, it is hard to know where to begin sometimes when you read topics like this.
Posted by Perussi 3 years ago
I can argue with the fine tuning argument. You can't though, you need moar experience....
Posted by Perussi 3 years ago
I can argue with the fine tuning argument. You can't though, you need moar experience....
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.

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