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

Resolved: one can disprove the gods of pagans without disproving the Christian God.

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: 4/25/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,772 times Debate No: 53335
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




I will argue this.


1. I must give hard support for my arguments or they are invalid
2. My opponent must disprove my arguments completely or theirs are invalid

Round 1: acceptance
Round 2: arguments and rebuttals
Round 3: new rebuttals and arguments
Round 4: new rebuttals and arguments
Round 5: rebuttals, no new arguments


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


First of all, thank you for accepting the debate, Mantizah. The main idea of my first argument is that if you disprove Zeus, you disprove all of the Greek gods, and it is feasible to do this without disproving the Christian God.

Point 1: Zeus is merely a statue figure, while there are no statues of the Christian God that people bow down to. They simply focus on Him when singing worship songs. A god cannot come out of a statue, do anything from it, or have it as part of his body. The Christian God, however, is purely immaterial and therefore has no face to sculpt in anything. That is why there are no statues of the Christian God.

Point 2: If Zeus existed, his messenger Hermes would have told him that I instigated this debate and am trying to disprove him without disproving my own God by now, and therefore would have already killed me with a thunder bolt. Therefore, since I have debunked all proof of Zeus, my argument stands.

Point 3: How does disproving Zeus disprove the rest of the Greek gods? In Greek mythology, Zeus was also the king of the Greek gods. Because they would need a king to give them orders or they would not carry out any actions. But since their king obviously does not exist, they do not exist. Since Zeus never existed, his father Kronos never existed, and neither did his mother Rhea. Many of the Greek gods were related to Zeus. If neither Kronos nor Rhea ever existed, this disproves most of the Greek gods.

Point 4: This by no means disproves the Christian God, even if it disproves Zeus because:

1. The two deities are separate. In Greek mythology, Zeus never gave the people fire because he was scared that people would worship fire instead of him [1]. God, however, in the Bible, gave people quail and manna [2], despite the possibility of them disobeying Him or turning away from Him [3]. That is one key difference: the Christian God is less selfish. Neither of them gave punishment of any kind without first being disobeyed.

2. As for my second point, if I am disproving Zeus but not my own God, and he has not killed me yet, but Atheists are disproving the Christian God all over the world, why is He not slaughtering them? Because my God is merciful.

Conclusion: One can disprove the gods of Pagans without disproving the Christian God because God and Zeus are different, God is not a statue, but Zeus is, I would be dead by now if Zeus was real, no Greek god can exist if Zeus does not, and if my argument disproves Zeus, it still does not disprove my God.

[2]- Exodus 16:13-15
[3]- Exodus 16:19-20


Good job trying to disprove the Greek and Roman gods. Those aren't the only pagan gods though. The definition of pagan according to google is: "A person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions." That encompasses just about everything. Have fun attempting to disprove EVERY SINGLE ONE OF MY OVER FIVE MILLION GODS!!!
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you, Mizah, for clarifying the definition of the word "pagan." I will now disprove all of the pagan gods without disproving my own God in two arguments.

A1: The main idea of my first argument is that if the Solar System was created by a deity, then only the Christian God could have created it.

The Atheist explanation for how the sun formed is that perhaps some sort of shockwave from a supernova triggered dust particles to combine into a spherical cloud, thus causing a chain reaction until it collapsed in on itself, and it continued to spin faster and faster until it would blow off any and all dust that came near it, and it flattened from its own speed into a dense-cord spinning disk. It's temperature is believed to have increased over time, thus causing hydrogen to become helium through fusion, setting off nuclear reactions that caused bursts to form the sun. Atheist scientists also believe that the planets formed through a process called accretion [1]. This implies that the solar system formed by chance, but I would like to challenge that nonsense. It would also be difficult, if not impossible, to animate this accurately because it is hard to scientifically tell what that would really make the solar system look like. That means that it would be likely that one or more of the planets was positioned incorrectly. If any of them were too close to the sun or too far away from it, simply saying, Pluto would have drifted off already, and the rest of the solar system would be a Solar Scatter instead of a Solar System. I will fully explain this in case of any need.

Key Point: The gravity of the other planets is apparently the only thing keeping Pluto from drifting off into outer space.

If any of the other planets were too far from the sun, they would drift off, taking the other planets with them, and thus leaving the planets in front of them with no gravity to keep them their distance from the sun, which means they would be vaporized, and therefore stripping them all of their gravitational pull and causing the other planets to drift out of the sun's gravity field. If any planet were too close to the sun, it would drift toward it more quickly than it does in reality, and would take smaller planets with it due to its gravitational pull. Because they would be together, their increased gravitational pull would thus cause them to accelerate into the sun. This would leave the planets behind them with no gravitational pull to keep the from drifting off. It makes no difference if anything in this argument is wrong, because in any scenario you look at it in which one or more planets is misplaced, the Solar System becomes a Solar Scatter in six-thousand years or less. Did a coincidental event make the Solar System stay intact like that? I think not, but if you wish to continue thinking that, I am fine with that.

A2: All pagan gods were evidently finite in power and knowledge. Therefore, even if one of them was powerful enough to create a Solar System that was a replica of ours, due to their finite power and knowledge, they would very unlikely be able to place tall of the planets in their diverse sizes and primary shape so that it would never become a Solar Scatter, regardless of how much time went by. Therefore, creating a Solar System that always stayed together would require the deity who created it to be omniscient and omnipotent.

Conclusion: If a deity created the Solar System, then it was definitely the Christian God because He is infinite, and all pagan gods were finite.


Sorry for being such a troll in that first round. ^_^ But now that bit of confusion cleared up, let't get some good debating going.

The premise of your arguments seems to be that it would have taken an omnipotent god such as the christian god in order to have formulated the proper conditions for our existence, and without one, there would be very little chance we would be here right now. But there are many gods that are just as powerful as the christian god in paganism. In fact, I could make up my own omnipotent god right that would be a complete opposite of the christian god, and if I where to start believing in it it would, in a sense, become my very own pagan god. Even if you prefer a different definition of paganism, there are still many all powerful gods for me to use, such as the Ik Onkar in Sikhism, or various African deities.

But let's say that the christian god is indeed the only god powerful enough to do something like that. Then we wouldn't be here without him, right? I don't think this argument really proves anything. As far as we can tell, the universe is infinite, and strange things happen in infinity. If you went on a long, long trip around the universe, I'm sure you'd eventually find a solar system quite like ours, or if you went on long enough, maybe even an exact replica.
Debate Round No. 3


There is no archaeological evidence to support the existence of pagan gods, but there is to support the existence of the Christian God. There is a lot of archaeological evidence to confirm the Bible, and it proves that God exists. For example, it has been proven that David really existed [1]. David, however, had a small size, not much muscle, and no combat training. But he indeed won, so God must have been with him and therefore must exist. There is no archaeological evidence, however, to support the existence of pagan gods. Some archaeological evidence can support pagan myths, but any archaeological confirmation of the supposed existence of pagan deities is more fallacious than evidence for the Bible, because (1) Atheists can refute them both and (2) any major event that affected the good guys' or the bad guys' chances can be proven coincidental. But as I demonstrated earlier, David and Goliath really existed



Mantizah forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Vote Pro.


I know It might've been good to find a more polite way to put this, but that argument there is the most perfect example of "bias" I have ever seen. You have admitted that both events relating to well-known pagan gods have been supported by archaeological evidence , as well as events pertaining to the christian god, but of course the pagan one's where coincidental, and the christian ones where "proof". David beating Goliath very well could have been plain luck on David's side, or even the support of a pagan god instead.mWho knows.

Sorry for forfeiting that last round, but I guess 3's enough.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by didymus 7 years ago
I think most of Pro's statements are ridiculous.
1st round:
1st point- First of all, Zeus is not a statue, he has a humanoid form and people make statues of it to remember him by, but that's not the same thing. The stories where the gods speak to the mortals through structures (such as statues) would simply be them using their will on it.
Assuming there is a flaw in this this argument, the God you claim to be working to prove has shared the traits that Zeus has. No one makes statues of it, but I do think I recall a certain burning bush talking to Moses. That, and the story of Genesis states both A) He made man in his own form (Man's form is similar to God's form, Man's form is physical, thus God's form is likely to be physical) and B) He actually walked in the Garden of Eden.

2nd Point: Your second argument claims that god's immediately smite those who speak down to them, and a consistency in the relations of god's. The gods of Greece were more like men then they were of the Christian idea of a 'god.' Zeus might be one of the mightiest of Gods, but if a single god liked you he could risk war within his Olympians and he isn't all powerful meaning that he could be defeated (something he wouldn't want.) If Greek gods acted like men, their relation-ships would also change, perhaps instead of Hermes running to get Zeus to smite you, he works for Hades and is getting a spot in Tartarus ready.

3rd Point: This is just ridiculous. Zeus may be the 'King of the God's', but many gods in the Greek pantheon would love a fight for power. Also: Zeus is a wimp. He hides from Hera out of fear. The other God's have their own personalities, and without the existence of Zeus they would still act for themselves.

4th Point:
4.1: Zeus hid flame from man so they don't develop pride. Prometheus gave it to them anyway.
God bid man not to eat the fruit so they wound gain knowledge of morality. The Serpent gave it to them anyway.
4.2: I'm Arguing Greece>Christianity God SAYS he'
Posted by Youth 7 years ago
It's too easy for Pro to win because it is about gods of pagans. I've done research. If one is really to be challenged, one has to disprove OTHER gods without disproving the Christian God.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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