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

Is God real

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,408 times Debate No: 19021
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)




I am an agnostic at this point because I see no evidence for the God of the bible however with that said I see no evidence for any other God either nor am I completely sold on evolution hence being agnostic.
I would like for you to give me evidence for the God of the bibles existence. The things I need explained/proof of are...
a) If God is real and loves us why so much suffering and why did he do things in the bible like killing David's so in a slow death to punish him and Bathsheba, or why all the firstborn of Egypt had to die for Pharaoh's hard heart?
b) There is no geological or historic evidence of a world wide flood
The bible has many inconsistencies in it such as the difference in Matthew and John disagree on what day Jesus was crucified, Matthew and Luke each give a different account of Jesus birth and the events after it. In 2 Kings 2:8 the bible tells about how Elijah went into heaven however years later Jesus was talking and he said "nobody has gone into heaven except he who descended from heaven even the son of man". For more errors go to you tube and look up brief bible blunders by profMTH.
c) there is no prophecy in the bible that is not either vague so it could be taken many different ways, or done years after the fact so it was not real at all or one the people themselves could make happen like the Jews returning home after captivity (they did this because the prophecy said they would)

I look forward to your response


You know what. In the holy Quran (holy book for the Muslims) it says that ALLAH (god) is real. In fact he wrote the book down. Also in the HAADITH, Prophet Muhammed (HOLY PROPHET) and other prophets were given signs that he is real. God wouldn't reveal himself since we can't see him or we will suffer. Questions? I WILL REBUTTAL TO THEM
Debate Round No. 1


Well first of all I was asking about the Christian God NOT Allah. 2nd of all no offence but that is a lame argument since you back it up with NOTHING show me from history a prophacy that has been fulfilled and that fits the following criteria...
If the Bible, for example, said, "On the first day of the first month in the year two thousand and ten, the pillars of the earth will shake and a great part of the New World will be lost to the sea," and then January 1, 2010 comes and a tremendous earthquake sends California to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, I would become a believer. No points are awarded under any of the following conditions:

If the prophecy is vague, unclear or garbled (like Nostradamus' ramblings, for example). It must be detailed, specific and unambiguous in its prediction and wording.

If the prophecy is trivial. Anyone could predict that it will be cold next winter, or that this drought/plague/flood will eventually subside. The prophecy must predict something surprising, unlikely or unique.

If the prophecy is obviously contrived for other reasons. No official seer or court astrologer ever predicted that the king he worked for would be a brutal, evil tyrant who would ruin the country.

If the prophecy is self-fulfilling; i.e., if the mere fact of the prophecy's existence could cause people to make it come true. The Jewish people returned to their homeland in Israel just as the Bible said they would, but this isn't a genuine prediction - they did it because the Bible said they would. The predicted event can't be one that people could stage.

If the prophecy predicts an event that already happened and the writing of the prophecy itself can't be shown to have preceded the event.

If the prophecy predicts an event that already happened and the happening of that event can't be verified by independent evidence. For example, Christian apologists claim that Jesus fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies, but the authors of the New Testament obviously had access to those prophecies also; what would have prevented them from writing their story to conform to them? The extra-biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus is so scanty that it is impossible to disprove such a proposal.

And finally, if the prophecy is the lone success among a thousand failures. Anyone can throw prophecies against the wall until one sticks. The book or other source from which it comes must have at least a decently good record on other predictions.
These conditions, I think, are eminently reasonable, and are only what would be expected of a true prophet with a genuine gift.

Scientific knowledge in holy books that wasn't available at the time.
If the Bible (or any other religious text) contained some piece of knowledge that the people of the time couldn't possibly have known but that is now known to be true, that would be highly convincing to me. A passage about the atomic theory of matter or the heliocentric solar system would be interesting, but not conclusive, since the Greeks, for example, proposed those ideas long ago independent of any claim to divine revelation. A mention of the theory of evolution would have been impressive. A reference to the germ theory of disease, or the laws of electromagnetics, would have been compelling. But what would be indisputable proof would be an elucidation of a truly modern theory of physics, such as relativity or quantum mechanics - not just something that the people of the time couldn't possibly have known of, but something so counter-intuitive that the odds against guessing at it correctly would be staggering. Just think: What if Jesus had said something like this?
"Verily, verily, I say unto thee that thine energy is as thine mass times the speed of light multiplied unto itself."

Of course people of the time would have been baffled, but just imagine how many souls it would have saved today. As with the prophecy item, there must be independent verification that the piece of knowledge was written in texts that existed well before it was actually discovered by science.

Miraculous occurrences, especially if brought about through prayer.
If cities condemned as sinful by preachers tended to explode in flames for no apparent reason, if glowing auras of holy light sometimes appeared around believers to protect them from harm, or if atheists and only atheists were regularly struck by lightning, this would be compelling proof. But it wouldn't have to be so dramatic; even minor but objectively verifiable miracles would do, especially if they could be invoked by prayer. If a hospital did a double-blind study to determine if intercessory prayer helps the sick, and it was discovered that only the patients prayed for by members of a certain religion experienced a dramatic, statistically significant increase in recovery rate, and this result could be repeated and confirmed, I would convert. This one shouldn't be so hard, especially for the Christians - after all, Jesus told them that they would be able to work miracles through prayer!

Any direct manifestation of the divine.
I'm not that hard to convert; I'll be happy to believe in God if he tells me to in person, as long as he does it in such a way that I could be sure that it was not a hallucination (for example, in the presence of multiple reliable witnesses, none of which are in a highly emotional or otherwise altered state). Where are the voices speaking out of burning bushes, or out of thin air when people get baptized? In Old Testament times, Moses saw God so often that he knew him on a first-name basis. Why doesn't this happen any more today?

Aliens who believed in the exact same religion.
And one more, though this one is just a bit off the wall. If humanity was to contact an extraterrestrial civilization, and if said extraterrestrials had a religion that was exactly like some religion on Earth, I would become a believer. (Though it would raise some interesting theological problems for Christians. Does Jesus have to travel to every planet in the universe individually, dying and being resurrected on each one?)
The second category deals with things that would not be conclusive, but that would count as circumstantial evidence. Show me one of these and I might not convert right away, but your religion will look a lot better to me.

A genuinely flawless and consistent holy book.
True inerrancy is, so to speak, the holy grail of theism. Almost every religion claims their scripture is perfect, but none that I know of have actually met this exacting standard; I have yet to read a holy text entirely without error or self-contradiction. A book that was free of such problems would be circumstantial evidence in favor of the religion that possessed it, but not compelling, since this is still explicable as the result of purely human forces.

A religion without internal disputes or factions.
It seems reasonable to expect that, if there existed a god that was interested in revealing itself to humanity and desired that we follow its commands, that god would write down whatever instructions it had to give us in a way that was only amenable to one interpretation. Thus, if a religion was true, we might expect that no factions or sects would form within it and all members of that religion would speak with one voice regarding ethical and theological issues. Why the alternative scenario should ever hold for an inspired religion is not clear. Did God intend to communicate his message clearly but failed to do so? However, since this could still be the result of human influence, it would only be circumstantial, not conclusive, evidence in favor of a given religion's truth.

A religion whose followers have never committed or taken part in atrocities.
If a given religion's sacred text consistently promotes peace, compassion and nonviolence, and if that religion's history reflects that fact, that religion would look much more attractive to me.


Some nonsense I see. Well it says that once you die, god makes you alive again on a different world (hell or heaven). A story in the Muslim holy book said that Prophet Ibrahim came to a retarded king and said that god can make life and can make death. The stupid king replied that he can too and he killed one of his slaves and let the other one free. That is a nonsense. Also Solomon (sulayman) could speak animal language because god gave him that ability. Also how come you are led to the wrong path???? God made you do it. Your just some nonsense bible talking. Oh and also bible was a mix of Torah, Gospel etc. and people changed it. IT IS COMPLETELKY WRONG. The Quran is safe from god so hats why it hasn't changed for many years. We have a 500 year old Quran. Any more nonsense of yours?
Debate Round No. 2


ROFL you really crack me up! what exactly do you expect me to respond to? you gave no evidence only your own opinion which I am not interested in at all. Show me some prophacys that fit the criteria I gave to you in round 2 I have given Islam that test and it fails on many points. The fact that you feel the need to simply spout about how your God is best without providing me with any proof shows that you have non and so you are wasting my time to argue with someone who will not share solid scientific historical facts with me.


Well we don't have Prophecies. Sometimes you might see the word Allah around you. My evidence is that if you look on your ear, it is the word Allah. Your fingers = Allah (In Arabic). There is much more which says Allah. Once I cut a tomato in half and it says Allah. More? Well, Jesus claims himself that he isn't a god. He said that he is a prophet of god. Jesus is real though. He did not die. He went to Allah and is watching him. When REAL Judgement Day comes he will come down. If this is not enough for you then wait until you die. Or wait till Judgement day. Proof that Christian is fake = A christian scholar said that their is Judgement day on May21 but it didn't happen, now October 21, it didn't happen. ROFL (whats so funny about that) Your making me laugh instead. YOUR AN IDIOT
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by danger93 6 years ago
Well HE DID NOT CLAIM THAT HE WAS A SON OF GOD. I think you guys hsould wait till the end of the earth.
Posted by Leftii 6 years ago
The debate asks for evidence. Here I give you evidence:
Posted by Leftii 6 years ago
Most scholars agree (whether monotheist, polytheist or atheist) that there was a man named Jesus around 7BC who claimed to be the son of God, that this man influenced and converted thousands of others, and that he was crucified at the hands of Pontius Pilate for blasphemy (thief of rights). Jesus was therefore either mad, bad, or was telling the truth. If he was mad, with a disease or actually believed he was the son of God, how would he be to persuade that many people. With no source of wisdom, merely the belief of his being God, there is no influence. If he was bad, he would have acted for himself rather than for others. The great things he did for other people only brought him suffering and, eventually, crucifixion. If you rule out the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truth. Therefore, Jesus was telling the truth and God exists. Although one may say this is week evidence, it is evidence nonetheless.

A counter argument is that rival theories, such as M-Theory, contain greater evidence (see debate: "Religion vs. Science").
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were very funny. Unfortunately however, I feel that he was UNintentionally funny. Con was the only one who made legitimate arguments.
Vote Placed by Double_R 6 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro disregarded everything Con said in favor of a ridiculous "argument" that the word "Allah" appears on our ears and when we cut a tomato. I really hope for his sake that he was joking.
Vote Placed by wiploc 6 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con offered some actual arguments. They went undefeated. Con offered insults, plus a tomato argument introduced only after Pro had no chance to respond.