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

God is real

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/11/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 738 times Debate No: 36599
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




I have invited Tulbakra to do this debate with me as he has stated himself being a soft atheist. I would like this to be a nice debate. You may go first using whatever evidence you want.


Okay, I accept. I am arguing that god is probably not real, whereas you are arguing god probably is real. I am not going to argue god is impossible, because it is impossible to completely disprove anything. You can't prove that elephants don't hide in cherry trees, but you can prove that they probably don't. So you are trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that god exists. For this reason, I think it make more sense for you to go first, to show me evidence that god is real, and then I will have to refute it.
Debate Round No. 1


This debate I have decided to debate using morality.

I believe that without a god, morality doesn't exist. Any agruements for it usually fall apart. If each person makes his own judgements of right and wrong, how can we tell that someone is wrong. Every bad thing that has ever occurred has most likely been justified by the doer of this action.


You are saying that god exists because morality must come from somewhere. First, why is what god says automatically moral? Because he is omnipotent? I could imagine an effectively omnipotent dictator, who could kill anyone with thought, but he would not dictate the absolute laws of morality. What makes god the ultimate moral figure? If god had allowed murder, would that be okay?
Your version of right and wrong almost certainly is different than mine.
And why is the bible necessarily the word of god? People interpret the bible differently. Some think the book of genesis should be taken literally, that the world was created in 7 days, while others think it is a metaphor. Some believe "thou shall not kill" is absolute and unconditional, whereas others believe in certain circumstances it is justified, such as self-defense.

Who is right?

Another piece of evidence? Why is there evil in this world? If god was all powerful and benevolent, why would he allow evil?

There are probably problems in my argument, I was up late writing it. Round 3 will be much better.
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for your post. If I'm correct, I'm taking you side as the following:
1. If God does exist, what would make him an absolute authority in morals.
2. How can you know the bible is correct.
3. Why is there evil.

I will now have my statements on these topics.

1. What makes God a moral figure- this is an interesting statement to contemplate. If we are considering a god that is all-powerful, as many religious people do, we can start from their. If God is all-powerful, he would know everything you have ever had to go through. He would know what everyone had to go through. So, in knowing this and all interactions in between each of these people, God could know which actions caused harm. However, if you claim morals are more than just preventing harm, I will give you this. God made all of us, making him above us all. As a being who is above all creation, shouldn't he be able to decide right and wrong. In other words, if God exists and he made morals, how can you claim he is immoral if the only concept of moral that exists comes from him.

2. Bible- when you say that the Bible can be taken many different ways, I agree. However, this does not take away from its overall authority if it is God's word. The reason is this. If a law is made saying you cannot kill, as you have said, that can be taken in many different ways. What about self defense, or capitol punishment? However, the law still makes a line that in what's right and wrong. How this line is observed is irrelevant as long as the line is still there. The Bible even says to work out your own salvation through fear and trembling. The main points are there in the Bible, which are the most important parts.

3. Why is there evil- this has many different points to it. It can be many things. You could have brought it upon yourself through your own bad deeds. Perhaps what we call "evil" may not be true evil if there is a God. It could be just something we don't understand. Like thinking death is bad. Death just means entering a new life, making it not bad at all. So something we consider bad, could be truly good. I'm sorry I don't have more on this topic as of now, but I'm rushing.

4. How do Atheists make their morals- as I have seen, many atheists claim that each individual makes his/her own morals. However, this would make morals pointless since you are walking a line drawn by you for you. Society as a whole has also been believed to make morals. However, society is constantly changing and some laws are ignored almost completely. So how do you claim to make your morals?

5. Final statement- one of the biggest things atheists point out is usually something along the lines of " I'm an atheist, and I know rape is wrong without a god telling me". However, this thought is wrong because you can know something is wrong independent of a religion, but your atheist views does not go with objective morality such as rape is wrong.


I'm sorry, but I don't have time for a very long argument. I am only going to make a few points, and here they are. If god is omniscient, and thus knows what actions are and aren't moral, the he is acting on things that can be logically deduced. So god is not making up morality, he is telling us what is there, so he is not needed.
Please don't say the child sobbing over their dead father could be a good thing. Killing, stealing, it could be okay, but the bible says it isn't, which, as you have said, is the ultimate morality. People die for reasons not connected to free will such as natural disasters, and if god was all good and all powerful, these would not exist and all violations of the bible would be from agents with free will.
No, atheists draw morals that society agrees on, morals that reduce suffering and protect unalienable human rights, that you are granted not from god but by the sheer virtue of being born a human. And morals that allow society to function better, helping everyone in society to survive and pass on their genes, like a well calibrated machine.
God is not objective morality. Just because he can see everything, how does he know what to weight as "bad", and what to weight as "good"? He has no way to decide. Ultimately, he picks a line to draw and draws one too.
And why is there only one god? Why can't there be many? Why is your concept of god correct, and not the one of the 5 year old child, taken to church who pictures god as an elderly man. Even philosophers and theologians disagree on what god is.

Again, sorry, I was rushed for time.
Debate Round No. 3


Solomon_Grim forfeited this round.


I extend my arguments. If my opponent has a good reason, I do not think the voters should penalize him. Thanks!
Debate Round No. 4


Sorry for missing last post, I was without a computer for a time beig. Even now, I am rushed.

1. God couldn't have based morals off of what we are doing if he has created us. God would have to create he idea of right and wrong before we could have a concept o it. So, Go had to have come before us if morals came from him.

2. Now, I'm not saying everything is good, as I probably implied before, but the bible says tht everything works toward good. If a man dies, yes people will be sad, but the man gets a new life and the family gains wisdom from it. Also, free will doesn't have to be the reason of death. You seem to say tht death is this horrible, awful thing, but its just a new life if you believe in God. I have had people died and I have been okay because of religion.

3. Society only works on the mass morality, which doesn't always work. Gemany once had the mass idea to commit genocide. Does this make it moral if the society agrees on it? Plus, you always have the gray areas that law doesn't effect. Like age of sexual acceptance. I don't think kids the age I fourteen should be havin sex, but some do. How so these gray areas work?


Tulbakra forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Tulbakra 5 years ago
I have another thing to add to my argument, and I would appreciate if you included this in your rebuttal.

If you say that atheists can't be moral without god, and that all morality comes from god, how can you justify the parts of the bible where it orders those who preform homosexual acts or work on the sabbath to be put to death. Unless you agree with those, you can distinguish right from wrong without the help of god. And if you reject them as not the word of god, why not reject the whole bible? None of it could be the word of god.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Leonardo 5 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 Checkmark-1 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: Pro made some S&G mistakes: "for a time beig." Most of Pro's arguments were just personal beliefs stated without evidence.