The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 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: 8/20/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,919 times Debate No: 78879
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)




I am going to argue today that athiesm is correct, and that no God of any kind, or any religion, really exists. I know lots of people out there are religious, so feel free to join and argue my belief.

The debate will go like this:

R1: State your opinion

R2-3: Defend your opinion

R4: Rebut opponent's opinion

R5: Closing statements.


I take the position that God is real, or in other words, that he exists.
Just to help clear things up, I am defending the Christian God (as understood from the Bible, in a natural reading style, which I have found is best defined in the protestant denomination).
He is...

Omnipotent-All powerful, able to do all that is doable

Good- God is Good, and the basis of Goodness. Evil is not an entity that God created, but is the absence of the purpose and goodness that should be. Just as dark is the absence of light, is a way, evil is the absence of good. I suggest researching this for a better understanding

All truth is in God- The law of non-contradiction is based in God's character. Paradoxes do not exist because all truth is in God, and it is God's nature to be non-contradictory. Logic is not a boundary, nor a limitation of God. Logic is a description of God's character, and as God made everything, all truth is in God

Morality- God created all things, so we have an obligation to him as our creator. Morality is objective.

This is my opinion. I hope this clears up some confusion so that you argue against me correctly. I find it important to define what I am defending, and this is what I am defending.
I'm curious to see your reasoning!
Debate Round No. 1


Here is my proof that God is not real. First off, think of world disasters. If God is supposedly the overseer of the world, who is in charge of what happens and helps to stop it, then why are there tornadoes? How about war? If God could stop those things, he would. Also, they say that God loves all. Then why does he allow people to die in prisons when they did nothing wrong? Why would he let innocent people get kidnapped, raped, or even murdered?
Another proof is simply the impossibility of the whole idea. It is physically impossible to supposedly "rise from the grave". When one is dead, they are dead.
Also, science has proved evolution. Humans were not "created", but instead they were evolved from other primates, like monkeys.

This is my part one of my argument. Your turn.


So now I will give my defense.

I will give the moral argument for the existence of God. My opponent assumes that there is a moral standard in his argument, as he labels things as being "wrong". His moral argument presupposes an absolute standard of morality. If he did not, then his arguments would be invalid, and his standard of wrong would be meaningless. My opponent's argument proves God exists, because God is the only possible source for an absolute moral standard.

I will also address the problem of evil that confuses people. People commonly say that God would make everything perfect and would stop "bad" things from happening. There are many problems with this.
This presupposes that people "deserve" a perfect life. But from the position that I am defending, people are inherently bad, not good. God created free will, people are not mindless robots. People chose to live their life in rebellion against God (as seen in Genesis). Evil existing in the world proves that God exists. The only way that "bad" things could exist is if there is a standard of right and wrong, and this standard of right and wrong can only exist if God exists. You could claim that "God wouldn't do that", but then you would claim that you know what an all knowing, all powerful God would choose to do if he existed (It isn't very likely that you have the ability to determine/predict what an all powerful being that you don't even believe in would do).

My opponents own argument proves God's existence. I will elaborate on this more.

We start with objective morality (which my opponent uses and assumes in his argument).

This standard must either have an impersonal source (derived from "nature"), or a personal source (determined from a person/being).
The source is personal, because if it was impersonal, then there would be no reason for following it. It would also be a law, like the law of gravity, which we can't break. But Morality is a standard that we can go against, so the source cannot be impersonal. A personal source would have meaning, because we would have some kind of responsibility to this personal source.

Because that standard of objective morality is from a personal source, it must be an objective personal source.

This objective personality must be all powerful and have created everything, or else the objective moral standard would cease to be objective in its application. If this objective personality wasn't all powerful and didn't create everything, then moral standards would not be absolute and all applying.

Because this objective personality is all powerful, and created everything, the attributes of being all existing and all knowledgeable would follow. These are important attributes for morality to always be objective, and have an objective, personal source. Without them, the objective personality would not be qualified to be the objective, all powerful personality that is required by objective moral standards.

Objective moral standards are between individuals/persons and are relational. That would mean that objective moral standards must have existed befor this objective personality created all things, or else this objective moral standard would be arbitrary.
From this reasoning, this objective, single personality must also be described and exist as a single objective personality, and yet also be descried in 2 or more persons. If not, then objective moral standards would become an arbitrary standard that was created when the objective personality created all things, and at this point, moral standards would cease to be objective.

All of these attributes describe God as known from the Bible. He is the absolute source of all goodness, he is all powerful, created all things, and is one God, described as 3 persons (father, son, holy spirit). Morality presupposes the Biblical God. For my opponent to argue against this, he would have to abandon right and wrong, in which case, he would have to abandon his own argument.

Also, reasoning/logic presupposes objective moral standards. For what reason "should" we accept a conclusion that was "logically" determined? Terms such as "should" are meaningless unless there is an objective moral standard. If their wasn't, then no one could say that we "should" be logical, and not live in a false world of our imagination. My opponent expects us to accept his conclusion based on the reason he gives. But without an absolute moral standard (which presupposes God), my opponent's argument would be meaningless, and there would be no reason to accept it. Why should we? Well we should accept a conclusion taken from the premises, if there is an objective moral standard that gives terms like "should" meaning. Without morality, reasoning (and debating) fails. Without morality, no one "should" be logical, logic would be arbitrary.

My opponents argument proves that God exists. He attempts to use reasoning and morality in his argument, which presuppose that the Biblical God (which I am defending), exists. The only way to argue this is to abandon reasoning itself, and accept all things (especially this debate) as being arbitrary.
Debate Round No. 2


First I would like to point out that my argument does not, in any way, prove God's existence. I do not know how you get that from a paragraph talking about how God's existence is physically impossible, but whatever floats your boat.
Speaking of floating boats, I will talk about Noah's Arc.
In the story of Noah's Arc, "The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits". which means Mount Everest would have been covered in water. This would have left behind much evidence, geographical, and genetical, because all animals except for 2 of each type died. There is no genetical evidence of this ever happening.
Also, God supposedly "answers prayers". However, most prayers are left unanswered. Those that are are just coincidence.
This is a quick, proving answer to whether God exists or not. The answer: no.


Your argument is just based off a Uniformitarian belief system. Your assume that the world was exactly the same before and after the flood, but that isn't what the Bible teaches. You argument is a straw man fallacy.

About prayers, your argument just shows that you don't know much about what prayer is. Prayer isn't "pray and God gives you everything you want". How we see prayers being answered is what we would expect from a Biblical viewpoint. You may disagree, so I suggest that you read about what the Bible says on prayer.

My point that I stated earlier, that morality presupposes God, is a argument that I personally like. Try reading through it again. If some part of it is confusing, just ask for clarification on a certain point!

My argument is that absolute morality presupposes an absolute personality (God). And that Logic presupposes absolute morality, because without absolute morality, there is no reason to be logical.
Debate Round No. 3


gocubsgo25 forfeited this round.


Put your argument in the comments when you come back, I'll wait!
Debate Round No. 4


gocubsgo25 forfeited this round.


Ill just leave the debate here
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by roguetech 3 years ago

"The truth is no one knows what god is, how could we puny humans define god. God is something beyond our understanding and knowledge. To try and define god would mean that god has limits. Only through our human arrogance can we claim to know what god is."

Ergo, god does not exist, since we can't even define what god could possibly be. However, I'd say this is actually completely false. We can and do routinely define the word "god". Just because there is little conformity in the definition, it could be done. Essentially, this argument is "Since we aren't infinite , we can't define 'infinite', so noone can assert any 'infinite' exists."
Posted by Blazzered 3 years ago
For the longest time I was trying to come up with who to give points but after constantly re-reading and trying to come up with RFD's. I am not convinced either side proved God is real.
Neither side provided any evidence for their claims. It was all conjecture.
Con focused too much on disproving Young Earth Creationism, when many Christians are Old Earth Creationists and do not take Genesis literal.
Pro's makes claims such as that good and bad cannot exist without God but then does not provide reasoning. Not only this but Pro claims that morality is objective, when in fact morality is proven to be subjective.
Pro also explaining the source of morality being personal, proves more of it being subjective, and does not prove the Christian God is real. If instead Pro had described that the source of morality came from the bible and/or the Christian God, then it would've leaned more towards proving the Christian God.
Posted by Alpha3141 3 years ago
Thats not the kind of God i believe in tho.
Posted by gocubsgo25 3 years ago
God is magic. And magic isn't real. God is supposedly a person flying high in the sky throwing his blessings to the people below. But nothing really changes. Wars are still happening, suicides are a hourly ordeal, And much of the world lives in poverty. God is illogical.
Posted by gocubsgo25 3 years ago
God is magic. And magic isn't real. God is supposedly a person flying high in the sky throwing his blessings to the people below. But nothing really changes. Wars are still happening, suicides are a hourly ordeal, And much of the world lives in poverty. God is illogical.
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
@MagicAintReal - A picture of a car isn't sufficient to prove it exists. Even seeing the car isn't. Empirical evidence needn't necessarily account for "true" epistemology.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
What doe's "god-like qualities" mean?
The truth is no one knows what god is, how could we puny humans define god. God is something beyond our understanding and knowledge. To try and define god would mean that god has limits. Only through our human arrogance can we claim to know what god is.
Posted by My_Username_is_Iillogical 3 years ago
my leg is god it kick people is of strong can i be win?
Posted by gocubsgo25 3 years ago
You know what I mean, don't you? For those who don't, a "God of any kind" refers to "of any religion". Holy, spiritual God.
Posted by MagicAintReal 3 years ago
A god of any kind?
Someone could claim that their god is their car.
They could prove their car exists by photo or video.
Despite the car not having god-like qualities or being the creator of the universe, this person regards their car as their god, thus you would have to conclude, their god exists.
You could only argue whether or not their god was god-like, but that's a different resolution and a different debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by roguetech 3 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate title is "God is real", but Con claims they will argue "no God of any kind, or any religion, really exists", and Pro states they are "defending the Christian God". Wtf?? The arguments on both sides are a little vague. No sources. Con provides the Euthyphro Dilemma, and evolution (without mentioning why it's relevant). Pro states god could still exist if it's evil, and ignores evolution. Con then addresses on specific claim in one specific book of a few religions (Noah's Ark), and one specific practice of some religions (prayer). To which Pro responds, "Na uh!" Since no sources or demonstration was made by either side, I give the debate to Pro for nattering on about morality. If Con had actually *explained* how evolution is counter to religion (e.g. disputes Genesis or establishes religion has comparatively little predictive power) or had mentioned there is not objectively any objective morality (and not forfeited two rounds)...