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

God is an atheist

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 738 times Debate No: 41625
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




The motion is that God is an atheist.

Definition of God
An omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being

Definition of his atheism
Does not believe in a higher power


Let's assume God is a "person" and not just a force.

God does not believe in a higher power that created him. He is alpha and omega. That is the same as Atheism, that the universe started on it's own.

One could say that a human was designed due to its complexity. It is similar to how our computers were designed by Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, instead of being formed by chance. Our bodies are even more complex than computers, therefore they must have been designed. However, the designer must be designed if that were the case.

The animation was designed by the computer, was designed by Bill Gates, was designed by God, was designed by what?

God made no mention of what designed him, therefore he is an Atheist. In some versions of Christianity (Mormons), God does have a God, but as far as I know, there is no mention in the Bible about God's God (or God's God's God).
Debate Round No. 1


Pro's argument is a fallacy from the start. Pro assumes that God can be compared to human. In truth, you cannot assume that God can be human, any more than you can assume a sofa is a barstool and, thus, assume that it can only hold one person. This assumption is riddled throughout religions, from Nordic to Christian theology. Many logical flaws in these religions would set the precedent that their concept of an all powerful creator, alpha and omega, is also flawed to an extent. One could take an educated guess that pro follows one of these religions and, therefore, is of the idea that God would even be capable of such a mortal action. Can I assume that a person is a lion and then expect him to be able to live with a pride in the Savannah? No, a person is simply not a lion. Even if he could understand a lion's instincts and even befriend them, he would still be a human and unable to consider the world at a purely instinctual level.
Pro is assuming that God thinks on a human level and is, therefore, capable of believing concepts. In truth, God would be all knowing as he is all powerful, and would, therefore, be simply unable to "believe". The mere speculation that God was created by another God would simply be an expansion of what God is.
Pro said that one "could" be designed via intelligence due to human complexity and God would follow in his respective design, already acknowledging that this may not be the case. In addition, although there is an argument for intelligent design, that design is scientific and evolutionary. Again, one sees that pro, despite arguing for the existence of "belief" in an all knowing being, indicates that he understanding of that being is in a very limited human approach, almost assuming that God is simply a magical matter creating being that travels alongside us in a three dimensional, linear pattern.
The notion that Pro considers the fact that technology is simple and humans are more sophisticated suggests that technological progression shall not exceed human's, in complexity, is simply a lack of foresight. The fact that he also uses this as an arguing point is a fallacy.
Pro's conclusion is, therefore, undermined in its generalised idea and subsequent speculations. Furthermore, Sects of Christianity do no define what God is, but even Biblical passages would maintain that God was the only one true God. That all other God's were false and that he knowledge is perfect. I do not personally believe these doctrines, your contradictions to the Bible undermines the arguments you base on the Bible.


Look up the short "God's God" on YouTube and you'll get what I'm talking about.

Atheism is the disbelief in a higher power. Since God says he's the highest power, he's an atheist. That simple.
Debate Round No. 2


I understand your point completely, but it has no rational basis. I could then speculate, under your assumption, that God had a family and a dog. Its simplistic and generalised and you have not dealt with any of my argument, but keep to yours, which I have already undermined to the extent that it is no longer feasible a basis to push your motion. Your youtube video is not only uninformative, but completely without wit and humour or good animation. I could not watch it past a minute. To this end, your argument is broken in its concept.


"God had a family and a dog" What does that mean?

"...All knowing and all powerful, cannot believe" You do have a point there. However, logically-speaking it is impossible to be able to do everything. "If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?" One cannot prove this, only test it when someone DOES hear it. "Draw a four-sided triangle." Impossible without changing the definition of a triangle.

It is impossible to know anything that happened before birth, unless you are given a sign of the past. Signs include history books, parent conversations, photos, etc. There wasn't even a mention of what happened before Gen 1:1. There was no mention even on why he created the universe.

If God does exist outside time, that means it would be impossible for Him to communicate with Adam, etc. Speaking words requires time. Therefore God does not exist outside time.

Then, He and the Universe must have been "created" spontaneously if he had no higher being. Similar to the Big Bang, only God is the start, not life. It is just as logical to say Animals and Humans are the start.

Anyway, I did not expect this debate (I did not even know that debates could be requested.)
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.