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

God is real

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,867 times Debate No: 115094
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (37)
Votes (1)




This is more of an experiment than a true belief. I think that the only way to improve your own argument is to try it from the other side. God is real because there are multiple similar stories from across the earth about creation.


I don't think what you said was accurate because although the abrahamic religions say that earth was formed about 6000 years ago, it is because they all came from a similar source. And not all religions say the same thing about the age of the earth. I think most eastern religions say the world has been around for longer then that.

The reason why I don't believe in God is because of biblical contradictions. I control a copy of a list of about 100, but one contradiction is:

When Paul was on the road to Damascus he saw a light and heard a voice. Did those who were with him hear the voice?

Yes (Acts9:7)
No (Acts22:9)

How can both verses be correct? I wish you good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


The bible is the word of God, yet it was transcribed by man. Paul could technically have been with himself ( i know im stretching it). Versions of the garden of Eden story exiat throughout the world such as the japanese origin story where man was made in heaven then sent to earth to breed.


With translating the bible, if God loved humanity and wanted them to get to heaven by God's rules, then he would have to have scribes/prophets who were perfect at scribing so this way when he got them to record stuff, they would have recorded it perfecctly.

No one is perfect at everything, but everyone can be perfet at something. Many people get perfect scores on some tests. A few people even get perfect on the SATs. If they can be that perfect at something as hard as an SAT, then shouldn't God's chosen writers have been perfect at recording the detail of an all powerful god and not make mistakes when doing so? If they weren't perfect, then God should have created somebody who could preach his word perfectly.

P.S. Next time, give you and your opponents more time to argue. It will make their responses better.
Debate Round No. 2


Another possibility is being lost in translation. The binle has been translated through many different languages without direct one to one translations, meaning that as time went on, little inconsistemcies are blown out of proportion.
P.S. I will take that into account, I'm used to debates in real life where time limits are short and strict, so i just went with what im used to


I understand that it could be translated wrong, but if God was really all powerful, wouldn't he have every language have a 1 to 1 translation? I know that he caused multiple languages to come to the earth as a punishment for humanity building a tall building, but couldn't he make all of those languages a 1:1 ratio? It would take a long time for people to eventually understand each other, so God's wrath could be fuffiled for that generation.

P.S. You might want more rounds so this could be discussed more in depth. What if I'm offline and you post a 30 min round? Then I might forfeit due to me simply not being online. More time allows for better arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by asta 3 years ago
P.S. Remember when you "blocked" Mosc? Well, he's still commenting.

But interestingly, the sample's link that I showed you how to block people with, he hasn't responded in a while. In other words, I think you blocked passwordstipulationssuck by accident. If you deblocked him, then he will get back online. If you block Mosc instead (make sure it's not passwordstipulationssuck again), then he will cease to comment.
Posted by asta 3 years ago
"While it is true that G-d created angels before man, they have no free will" Satan was previously an angel. He has as much free will as humans do.

If G-d truly was all powerful, then could he make a stone so big he can't lift it? He either can or he can't. If he can then he can't lift everything, since this stone was one thing that he couldn't lift. It may be possible to lift something bigger then yourself, so the size of G-d is irrelevant.

I checked your Torah/Bible verses and:

Genesis 3:7 states "And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves and made themselves girdles."

Genesis 23:9 states, "That he may give me the Machpelah (double) Cave, which belongs to him, which is at the end of his field; for a full price let him give it to me in your midst for burial property."

Neither verses even hint at evolution.

I don't know Hebrew and neither does most of so not out of rudeness, but if you post stuff in Hebrew, people wouldn't understand you.
Posted by judaism 3 years ago
Those are the letters of the Name.
Posted by judaism 3 years ago
Here's the Hebrew in English:

Posted by judaism 3 years ago
All the evidence is remarkable, and has to be dealt with properly if we're to deny the G-d of Israel.
Posted by judaism 3 years ago
Sadly, this site doesn't allow Hebrew characters. I had HaShem's name in Hebrew at the end. Oh well.
Posted by judaism 3 years ago
In the Bavli Talmud, specifically Erubin18a, that "Man was first created with a tail like an animal," and Bereshit Rabbah (Genesis 23:9) adds to that, stating: "Up until the generation of Enoch, the faces of men resembled those of monkeys."

Does any of this really sound like pseudoscience? Was it all just pure coincidence? Please forgive me in advance, but I think the evidence clearly points in the right direction. There is a G-d, and evolution, the age of the universe, the number of stars and continents on this earth, were all known to the sages of Judaism before science (as in Plato, Aristotle, etc.) was even an idea.

This is something to truly think over. And yes, while atheists claim there are philosophical problems with the existence of G-d, the evidence shows the contrary; moreover, any problems can reconciled. But it all only works out if you take the leap. . . the leap to believe. . . to know. . . that there was, and still is, a Master Programmer who runs the show.

Who is that Master Programmer? The G-d of Israel. Elohim. אֱלֹהִים
Posted by judaism 3 years ago
While it is true that G-d created angels before man, they have no free will, so they can't be tested to prove their love in return for His investment: Their creation.

As far as the stone analogy, it's been thrown around a lot. My answer would be both: Yes, G-d can create a stone so heavy that He can't lift, and yes, He can create a stone so heavy that He CAN'T life, but you're missing the point of the solution: That's the fact that G-d has the power to create such a stone, whether He choose to make it heavier than Himself or not, is not the point. G-d has the ability to do anything.

Why doesn't G-d just come down here and present Himself? Good question. Like the Rambam said, if I knew everything, I'd be Him! I don't have all the answers, but again, I'd point to you that it's all a test. If He showed Himself, everyone would believe, and there'd be no point in sin or the mitzvot, and that's not what Gd wanted.

You admit that G-d "might exist." That's a start! How is it likely that He doesn't exist? You're not G-d to know, right?

It is well that you, unlike others on this site, know how to read the Bible in context, and as a result, don't think its a terrible book. For that, I thank you.

Both the Bavli Talmud and Zohar mention evolution centuries before Darwin. In 1905, Rav Avraham Yitzack Kook responded to questions concerning evolution and the geological age of the world. He put forth this letter, it reads in part:

"Even to the ancients, it was well known that there were many periods that preceded our counting of nearly six thousand years for the current era. According to the Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 3:7), 'G-d built worlds and destroyed them,' before He created the universe as we know it. Even more astonishing, the Zohar (in Vayikra 10a) states that there existed other species of human beings besides the "Adam" who is mentioned in the Torah's [Bereshit]."
Posted by asta 3 years ago
If Earth was Africa, then China would be Ethiopia, since they resisted religion/western influence the most, so much so, that they believed in policies just because religious people tended to oppose the policies and vice versa. I don't like atheists doing this so I don't like agreeing with someone just because they agree with me on other issues and this applies to social issues that atheists tend to go left on.

"If more people looked into Torah, and saw what it had to say, it would be a better world" This is true. At least it will provide people with reading experience so their lexile goes up. Beyond that, the morality in the book is good but I don't believe in G-d.
Posted by asta 3 years ago
Hi Judaism,

If G-d wanted a relationship, couldn't he supply this with angels? Angels (at least in my religion) have a higher chance of going to heaven then a human and a smaller chance of going to hell.

"Can G-d make a stone so big He can't lift? Spin it around, can He make Himself so powerful that He can lift any stone?" That wasn't the question.

The question is, "Can God create a stone so heavy that not even he can lift it?"

If your answer is No, then he's not all powerful because he can't create such a stone.

If your answer is Yes, then he's not all powerful because he can't lift any stone.

I want to create a better world and I think I know how to do it.

"Sending representatives would make it too easy for us, and He had no intention of making it so!" Why can't believing in God be easy? God wants a relationship and making himself physically present would make it easier since people would acknowledge that he exists.

In your mirror desert analogy, even though there could be a god anywhere in the universe, how could a perfect God exists when they contradict themselves.

"How can we then say that G-d doesn't exist when we wouldn't even know if our eyelids exist or not (pretending we didn't touch them either, and that we're - you're - alone)." This is saying that we don't know if our eyelids exist, which in reality we don't know. We don't know anything except our conchies exists.
However, this is only saying God might exist, and he might exist. He just probably doesn't exist.

In my analogy, Aristotle would represent a native earthling ideology and he "buys land" by influencing other people. It may be only the religious deities that buy land from each other and them buying land is the permission to influence. How does Judaism agree with evolution? I tried to read that book that you showed me in the link, but I'm not a good reader. What Bible/Torah verse(s) prove evolution?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: This was a terrible performance by both debaters. Pro's argument for the existence of God was that stories found in the Bible have similar parallels in other cultures. Pro never explained why that entails the existence of God, and Con never made any attempt to refute Pro's argument. Con's argument was that the Bible contradicts itself. Con only sorta-kinda explained why that entails the non-existence of God. It's because if God exists, then he could've ensured that the Bible would have no contradictions. Pro didn't deny that the contradictions were there. He just explained them by way of faulty transmission. I gave Con arguments because he at least gave some rudimentary explanation for how his premise lead to his conclusion, but Pro didn't.

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