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

God is alive

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,461 times Debate No: 83850
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)




There is a living God a he Loves you dearly. :)


I acept. I do not believe that God is alive. I also do not believe that he exists which, if demonstrated, still allows me to fulfill my BOP.
Debate Round No. 1


Firstly lets start of by logical thinking why wouldn't be a God, if there wasn't how did we get here it's weird to say we just a spontaneous explosion happened for no reason by the way the spontaneous explosion that I am talking about is evolution (Cosmic evolution) I think the logical explanation would be that in the beginning God created the heavens and the universe and all that in them is even so where do we get our morals from of there is no God.
How do you tell right from wrong and you could say that I decide right from wrong well lets say for example if you for example we met and you said something that annoyed me and I decided to beat you up but because I believe in a God that teaches about loving everyone and forgiveness I decided not to beat you up and just leave it I hope you're getting my point.
If you want scientific evidence in the next round let me know


Contention 1: God cannot be Omnipotent (1)

God is defined as omnipotent. Omnipotent: " having unlimited power; able to do anything."

P = Premise

C = Conclusion

P1)If God exists, then God is omnipotent

P2) This means that there is nothing that god can't do

P3) There are things that God is unable to do.

C1) God does not exists

It is clear that my opponent will agree with me on P1 and P2 since they are advocating the existence of the Christian God (according to R2). Since my opponent will most likely not accept P3, I will defend this argument.

Defense of P3

P1) An omnipotent being can create an object it can't lift.

P2) If an omnipotent being can create an object it can't lift, it can't lift the object, thus it isn't omnipotent

P3) If it can't create an object it can't lift, then it is not omnipotent.

C1) Omnipotence is impossible.

The usual objection to this claim is that this is a logical impossibility and god is bound by the logical absolutes. However to say god is bound, is a concession to his omnipotence. God can't even do all that is logically possible.

P1) An omnipotent god can be evil

P2) An Omnibenevolent god can't be evil

C1) A god that is defined as omnipotent and omnibenevolent can't exist.

Explanation of P1: An omnipotent God can do anything and therefore an omnipotent God can be evil.

Explanation of P2: God in Christianity and many other major religions, is defined as omnibenevolent (all loving).

Explanation of C1: These two statements cannot simultaneously exist however in the Bible they do. This means that the God (as defined in the Bible) cannot exist based on these logical fallacies.

God is described as omnipotent in the Bible here:

"For nothing will be impossible with God.” Luke 1:37

"Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure." Psalm 147:5

Contention 2: Free will (3)

The Bible clearly states that we all have free will. This cannot be true since it also describes God as omniscient (all knowing). If God is all knowing, this means that he knows what will happen in the future for a complete certainty. Therefore this future is predetermined.

P1: If the God of the Bible exists then he gave us free will.

P2: If the God of the Bible exists then he is omniscient.

P3: If God is omniscient then he knows what will happen in the future.

C1: God must know what we are doing at all times

C2: The God of the Bible creates a paradox.

C3: The God of the Bible does not exist.

Explanation of P1 and P2: God is described as omniscient (2) in multiple Bible verses, described as the following:

“Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD” Psalm 139:4

“He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name. Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit” Psalm 147:4-5

The concept of God giving us free will is presented in the Bible here:

"The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps." Proverbs 16:9

Now that this has been established I will move on ...

Explanation of P3: This is utterly contradictory. If God knows that in 5 seconds a man will jump off a building for a 100% fact. Does that man have any choice of not jumping off that building? No. God knows that it is a 100% fact - that, by definition, is omniscience. The man has no free will however (apparently) God gave us free will and therefore, as a result of this, God has contradicted himself, which makes his existence significantly less likely.

Explanation of C1: Assuming that God exists then this is true via omniscience and omnipresence.

Explanation of C2: This is true since omniscience is contradicted by free will.

Explanation of C3: God cannot exist because that would make a logical impossibility due to the previous conclusion (C2).

Contention 3: The Big Bang

Some advocates of God's exist believe that the big bang did not occur. Some advocates believe that God's existence coincides with the big bang. I will now demonstrate the following.

P1: There was nothing before the universe was created

P2: The universe was created by the big bang

P3: The big bang was not created by God.

C1: The Universe was created by the big bang

C2: God did not create the universe

C3: This disproves the existence of the Christian God since Christians believe in a divine creator.

Demonstration of P1: The universe has no energy due to the fact that it is being cancelled out by both positive and negative energy - ie. matter and gravity (7). This means that there is nothing. Nothing, scientifically can be described as quantum fluctuations. A quantum fluctuation in this context can be described as something that has no matter,gravity, time, radiation and most importantly - energy (5). This is what there was before the big bang occurred. Since there was nothing in the beginning it is extremely difficult to prove that a creator was involved (6). Yes, it is possible but it isn’t necessary. You could say that God created evolution. It is possible but there is a perfectly rational explanation of evolution without the intervention of God. Quantum fluctuations because they’re … nothing. This instability will certainly allow energy to be expressed and since there is nothing, the proportion of energy to the universe is huge. This created the Big Bang.

Demonstration of P2: I will now prove the second premise of my argument. The Big bang must have created the universe because it coincides with the following truisms. The redshift of distant galaxies means that the Universe is probably expanding. If we then go back far enough in time, everything must have been squashed together into a tiny dot (4). The rapid eruption from this tiny dot was the Big Bang. Another piece of evidence that falls in line with this theory is in regards to the mixture of certain elements. As the Universe expanded and cooled down, some of the elements that we see today were created. The Big Bang theory predicts how much of each element should have been made in the early universe, and what we see in very distant galaxies and old stars is just right (4). You cannot look in more recent stars, like the Sun, for this particular evidence, because it contains elements that were created in an older generation of stars. As such, the composition of new stars will be very different from the composition of stars that existed 7 billion years ago, shortly after the Big Bang. This is just some of the coinciding evidence that the Big Bang contains with current universal truisms.

Explanation of P3: The explanation provided by me shows that the Big Bang was naturally caused and a God is not necessary to involve in the theory. Unless my opponent can prove to me that it is beyond 50% chance that God caused the Big Bang voters and my opponent have no other choice than to buy my creation claim.

Explanation of C1: See P2

Explanation Of C2: See P3

Explanation of C3: See P3


My arguments negate in a number of ways. I have explained the causation of the universe and how it happened WITHOUT a God. I have also shown why it is preferable to buy the fact that the Big Bang created the universe not the creation story. This is because the Big Bang is a sourced and well backed up theory, whilst my opponent has failed to provide anything to make me believe that his method is preferable.

Morality is easily explained. there are 2 major explanation for morality: Happiness and the fact that acting immoral is irrational. So the reason that we are moral is so that we can be happy and also because being immoral serves no purpose and this therefore an act of irrationality(8).










Debate Round No. 2


P1 Agree
P2 Agree
Q1 what is God unable to do.
omnipotent means of a deity) having unlimited power. if you create something and you have unlimited power you can definitely lift it.
when you make a claim please be specific in what you mean
Explanation of C1: These two statements cannot simultaneously exist however in the Bible they do. This means that the God (as defined in the Bible) cannot exist based on these logical fallacies?

How is it logically impossible for someone so loving yet so powerful to exist? you have to remember that God isn't a human in, this is a being much smarter than us and much greater than us you cannot compare the creator with his creation for example look at an Inventor and his invention; the Inventor made the invention not because he wants to destroy it its because he felt like something in his life was missing something that only the invention could fill and the inventor would not want to destroy its creation because he cares about it and there is a beautiful purpose the inventor wants it to fulfil.

P1,2,3, Actually your future isn't predetermined because in the present time you decide what you do how you want to do it and when you want to do it that maps out your future so no it's not predetermined.
explanation of P3 Really if God knows that you will jump off a building and you do then you have no free will.

My explanation of P3 if the man has a choice to jump off a building or not to its his choice whether I know God knows or you know its his choice whether to do it that's free will

Omniscience is not contradictory to free will for example I know you will reply to this argument its not forcing you to its just knowing what you're going to do and if you don't reply to this argument then it prove my point you have free will to do whatever you want despite what I know

P1 reply: if there was nothing before the universe was created then how did all of the matter and the particles get there and how did all the matter explode if there was nothing to make the explode.

P2 reply: The fact that science is being mixed in with the big bang theory is an oxymoron lets find out why I say that firstly for something to be scientific it has to be tested observed and proved the big bang theory has obviously not been observed or proven so its just a theory that has nothing to do with science.

C2 reply: cannot be proven so I would say that claim is false nothing ever starts without a beginner so I would disagree with that statement.

Demonstration of P1 reply: you're using circular reasoning saying that the universe created the big bang and the big band created the universe one has to come first.

Demonstration of P2: it is not possible that everything in the universe was squished is impossible cant be proven also where this mass come from it must have came from someone, and you said As the Universe expanded and cooled down, some of the elements that we see today were created. So you admit to the things in the universe being created.
Also how do you know the earth is 7 billion years old where you there also in school we are being taught that gravity is getting weaker this means that it use to be stronger how far do you have to go back for that to be a problem for living organisms, because of the strength of gravity was too strong it would generate too much heat on earth for life to survive. it is impossible for the earth to even be older than 25,000 years old.

Irrationality is what evolution teaches survival of the fittest take whatever you can to survive.
Also I would like to say it is impossible to prove something happened 1. when you weren't there or born 2. you know someone was there or there being evidence of that person who was there if you have none of these you are making assumptions.
Also the coal is the physical evidence described in the book of Genesis in the bible. prove me wrong if you can.

The Age of the Earth:

Lies in the text books

The dangers of evolution:



This is basically dropped. My opponent misunderstands it, I will put it into a few syllogisms for simplicities sake. In these syllogisms I will be assuming that God exists to show how much of a paradox this would be.

P1: God is agreed to be omnipotent
C1: God is omnipotent

Now that we have established that God is omnipotent we can move on:

P1: God is omnipotent
P2: God can create a rock that nobody (including himself) can lift
P3: God can lift anything
C1: This is a paradox

Demonstration of P1: This is conceded

Demonstration of P2: God is omnipotent so he can do anything.

Demonstration of P3: God is omnipotent so he can do anything.

Demonstration of C1: Can God lift the rock? If he can lift the rock then he cannot do anything because he is unable to make an unliftable rock. If he cannot lift the unliftable rock then he is not omnipotent because he is unable to pick it up.


Jumping off the building is not his choice though. When I refer to the man that is going to jump off the building, can he decide not to jump off the building? The answer is no. God knows for a 100% fact that he will jump and therefore he cannot decide not to jump. This argument is often referred to as theological fatalism and just highlights the fact that the Bible is contradictory in its description of God (1). If the Bible is unable to consistently define God, then the Bible's description of God is false. If the Bible's description of God is false then how can we trust what the Bible is saying? Omniscience and free will are accepting as coinciding points in many major religions including Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Hinduism (2). This severely diminishes the possibility of a God since these 4 religions make up 4.94 billion people (5) out of the 7.3 billion people (4) and if this contradiction stands then this takes up 98.8% of the world's theists (3).

I like this analogy made by my opponent:

"I know you will reply to this argument it’s not forcing you to its just knowing what you're going to do and if you don't reply to this argument then it prove my point you have free will to do whatever you want despite what I know,"

Unfortunately, it fails. You have simply proven that I have free will (which I am not contesting). You do not know that I will respond, hence you are not omniscient. I never said that I had no free will, I merely said that omniscience and free will cannot coexist, and since you are not omniscient since you have conceded to not knowing whether or not I would respond this fails; showing me that I have free will, not that it coincides with omniscience.

Big Bang

My opponent rejects P1 stating that there was no matter before the Big Bang. My opponent requests that I explain how matter formed so I will:

"... after the Big Bang ... the universe was tremendously hot as a result of particles of both matter and antimatter rushing apart in all directions ... 10-43 seconds after creation, there existed an almost equal yet asymmetrical amount of matter and antimatter ... they collide and destroy one another creating pure energy ... there was an asymmetry in favor of matter ... result of an excess of about one part per billion, the universe was able to mature in a way favorable for matter to persist ... the particles which began to dominate were those of matter ... were created and they decayed without the accompaniment of an equal creation or decay of an antiparticle." (6)

My opponent then objects P2 - clearly misunderstanding the term 'theory' as scientifically irrelevant.

Theory: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain (7)

There are two words in the definition that I would like to highlight and point out: scientifically (a word that completely contests with my opponent's argument) and acceptable (an addition which goes against my opponent's argument even more). Since this is the official Merriam Webster definition, I believe that this proves beyond reasonable doubt, due to its well-known credibility (7), that a theory is more than just a random guess - and it is certainly scientific.

The Big Bang may not have been tested but my opponent seems to have dropped all of the scientific evidence and sourcing I provided in the previous round to prove its likelihood and credibility.

He then continues by contesting with C2 in regards to a God not creating a universe. I agree that this cannot be proven, but God cannot be either. God debates are on balance debates, meaning that we are debating on probability (not 100% fact) because I think we can both agree that we cannot prove or disprove God 100%. I extend out this argument since my opponent has not attacked it, merely stated that it cannot be proven - and should therefore be deemed false, which distorts my opponent's argument further since nothing he has said can be proven 100% true. Not even gravity can be proven 100% true (8), in fact it's considered to be a theory (8). It's interesting to note that my opponent deemed theories as something that is not scientific and just a guess. Is gravity just a random UNSCIENTIFIC guess?

Further Demonstration Of P1: He says that I have used circular reasoning in describing the creation of the universe. I have not. I said that the Big Bang caused the universe and the instability of quantum fluctuations caused the Big Bang. This is not circular reasoning.

Further Demonstration Of P2: He then attacks specific elements of my argument. Yes everything was squished into a very small space however as I said, at the time, everything was less than what everything is now. After the Big Bang a lot was created, and therefore, a lot has come since that point. I do admit that elements were created, but not by a God or an intelligent designer, by nature and in this case, the Big Bang.

My opponent has used a YouTube video to attempt to prove that the Earth is
25,000 years old. This is insufficient and there is a significantly higher, and well supported, theory suggesting the contrary to this.

"The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%) [at a minimum]. This dating is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the radiometric ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples." (9)

This proves that at the very least the Earth's age is 4.54 billions years old (9). If this is not enough proof, then it has been confirmed that there has been a 4.4 billion-year-old zircon rock found and accurately dated (10).

My opponent has (again), shot himself in the foot. He says the following:

"it is impossible to prove something happened 1. when you weren't there or born"

My opponent was not born at the beginning of the universe so he does not know that God made it either. This just contradicts his case as well as mine. This debate is an on balance debate (as previously stated) and therefore it is a debate in regards to probability and possibility rather than absoloute fact.

The Bible is an unrealiable source. It contains multiple inconsistencies and therefore its word should not be valued. I have already presented the inconsistency of omnipotence and omniscience however this is not all.

"the second month, the seventeenth day of the month," (11) Noah's arc

"the tenth month, on the first day of the month" (11) Noah's arc



Debate Round No. 3


Thiest_1998 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Thiest_1998 forfeited this round.


Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Thiest_1998 2 years ago
@HAYD My gamer tag is ElasticAnimal36 but I will only be able to play you on the 20th earliest because I'm on holiday right now
Posted by Forever23 2 years ago
lol sorry famous. I was late on that vote ;). I was writing out a 10 page feedback until I noticed the forfeits.
Posted by Hayd 2 years ago
I'll play you in fifa Thiest_1998
Posted by Thiest_1998 2 years ago
Xbox 360 but we could have chat about this debate in a party
Posted by WadeWilson2222 2 years ago
So you're saying that it's weird to think that we came from a "spontaneous explosion" and evolved from bacteria and everything else to humans, but it's not weird to think that you were created from clay or dirt and that eve was created from Adams rib? Yeah so weird.
Posted by famousdebater 2 years ago
@Rosalie - Nope, we don't know if God exists or not and therefore I need to demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, that God doesn't exist (this is my burden). My opponent must, in turn, demonstrate that God most likely exists and that he is still alive. This does give him a larger burden since he must demonstrate that he exists and is alive and I must only demonstrate that he is non-existent to fulfill my burden however this does not give me a non-existent burden.
Posted by Rosalie 2 years ago
PRO is suppose to have the Bop.
Posted by Romaine 2 years ago
First of all. God not going to save everybody that's believes in him
Or call on his name. Sorry but doesn't work like that.
Posted by famousdebater 2 years ago
Xbox one
Posted by Thiest_1998 2 years ago
you play fifa do you have Xbox 360?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Forever23 2 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF and concession by pro
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 2 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 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: FF