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

The Christian God Does not Exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/24/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,517 times Debate No: 18026
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)




Definitions: The Christian God, as described in the Bible and possessing the qualities of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence.

Omniscience: Having total knowledge, knowing everything.

Omnipotence: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful

Omnibenevolence: Literally all good. Unlimited or infinite benevolence.

As Pro it is my role to affirm that the Christian God as described above does not exist and can not exist because he is a logical impossibility. It is the role of Con to affirm that the God described above is a logical possibility.

In taking this debate my opponent recognises that the truth or falsity of God's existence is a matter that can be decided using logic, he recognises the Bible as a valid source for the nature of God irrespective of whether or not the stories are intended to be literal or allegorical and he accepts the definitions above, this is important as the last person who took this debate did not understand and so automatically forfeited. Any deviation from these rules will be regarded as an automatic forfeit.

Argument 1: The Problem of Evil (Suffering)

Though much maligned by the activities of a recent troll, the problem of evil is still worthy of consideration. Evil however is very much a vague concept, suffering though also subjective is universally understood and experienced, and seems to cut right to the centre of what the Problem of Evil questions.

P1: If the Christian God exists he is aware of all suffering (omniscient), Capable of ending all suffering (omnipotent) and would desire to end all suffering (omnibenevolent).

P2: Suffering exists.

P3: Therefore the Christian God does not exist.

As I see my opponent has only two ways to refute the Problem of Suffering.

Refutation One: God Lacks one or more of the Omni-Characteristics

My opponent may argue that God lacks one of the Omni-Characteristics, perhaps he is Omniscient, Omnipotent but not omnibenevolent? However as the argument is predicated on the existence of a being with all three attributes such an argument causes them to concede their position.

Refutation Two

My opponent may argue that suffering is necessary to allow happiness. However this argument seeks to impose limitations on the power of God. An omnipotent being is able to create happiness without any restrictions and indeed would want to.

My opponent may seek to counter that his definition of Omnipotence is Logical Omnipotence, not Maximal Omnipotence, and that logically suffering and happiness must exist alongside each other. To justify such an argument he will have to demonstrate that creation is possessed of the greatest possible amount of Happiness and the least possible amount of suffering that is logically possible to create. He will also have to justify how God could keep suffering absent from the Garden of Eden and how he will keep suffering absent from heaven, but can not or will not do that on earth.

Argument 2: Omnibenevolent and Omnipotence can not co-exist.

P1: An omnibenevolent being will always perform the most benevolent act, is unable not to do so.

P2: An omnibenevolent being therefore lacks free will.

P3: A being without free will can not be described as omnipotent.

P4: A being can not posses the characteristics of omnibenevolence and omnipotence.

P5: Therefore God does not exist.

Argument 3: The Great Flood

Genesis 6:5 to 6:7 states,

5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

How does an omniscient being regret his actions? God would have had full knowledge of the consequences of his actions.

How does an omnibenevolent God deem genocide to be justified? My opponent must show how flooding the earth and killing countless men, women and children was the most benevolent solution to a world of sin that God had intentionally created.

Argument 4: The Tower of Babel

In Genesis 11:4 to 11:7 it is recorded that,

"4And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

5And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

6And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

7Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech."

Reading the text God is not omniscient on two counts, not omnipotent on one count, and not omnibenevolent on one count.

1: God is not omniscient, he learns of the tower being built and reacts to this. If he was omniscient he would have had prior knowledge of the intention to build the tower of Babel.

2: God is not omniscient, the building of the tower attracts his attention and he 'came down' to see it. If he was omniscient he would have known every detail of the event throughout all of time.

3: God is not omnipotent, he fears the ambition of mankind, he regards it as a threat that he has to nullify.

4: God is not omnibenevolent. He does not want what is best for mankind, he wants us to be divided and unable to co-operate.


I believe that these four arguments provide a sufficiently robust argument to affirm the resolution and look forward to my opponents rebuttal.


I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for creating this debate. I hope it will be a good, intriguing debate.

I accept all of the definitions brought by my opponent. However I would like to offer a few of my own as well.

Does: Third person singular present tense of do
(Do: To perform or execute.)
Not: In no way; to no degree. Used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition.

So, essentially my opponent has to prove that in no way, in no degree can the Christian God exist.

Now, I would like to begin by offering an overview of my contentions; then I will offer the contentions themselves.

1. The existence of the Christian God is a possibility.
a. We do not completely understand the entirety of the universe.
b. Logically a being of that power is possible.

Now on to my contentions.

Contention 1. The existence of the Christian God is a possibility.

a. We do not completely understand the entirety of the universe.
As human beings we in no way understand every thing that exists and can exist. Scientist are still today finding new species and new fact about the more obscure places on the planet Earth. As this is true, it is sad for one to think that we have complete knowledge of everything on Earth, much less the entire universe. We must keep in mind, when judging whether or not the Christian God exists, that our knowledge is incomplete. As logic is based on this knowledge, we must come to the conclusion that the existence of the Christian God is possible.

b. Logically, a being of that power is possible.
My opponent defines the Christian God as possessing the qualities of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenenvolence. While keeping my previous subpoint in mind, can we disprove the existence of such a being? It is entirely possible that the Christian God could exist and it would be going against logic to say otherwise. Let us, for a moment, assume we have a complete knowledge of what we can discover through experimentation and examination of even the farthest reaches of space. If such a being was to exist, possessing the aforementioned qualities then it is entirely possible that if such a being was to decide to remain hidden from these examinations, then it would be entirely in it's power. So even if we had a complete knowledge of all things then it would still be logically impossible to disprove the existence of the Christian god.

In conclusion, When one looks at the resolution, the definitions, and the rules established by my opponent one sees that the task of the Pro side is to prove that the Christian God, in no way and to no degree exists. I however, simply have to prove that the existence of this God is a logical possibility. As I have shown with my previous arguments the existence of the Christian God is not only a possibility but if one is to argue otherwise, he or she is showing a lapse in logic. It is for this reason that I ask for a Con vote in this debate.
Thank you.

In order to avoid being abusive I will hold my attacks until the second round of the debate. I look forward to my opponent's reply.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank my opponent for taking this debate, but I feel that he may have made a mistake in not attacking my contentions in the first round. Due to the structure of the debate even if I fail to address his arguments he will still lose if he fails to address mine. This is a three round debate, so my opponent has crippled himself.

In addition I do not see how his additional definitions enhance understanding of the debate, and for fear of being trapped in some sort of semantic quandry I withold my acceptance of them.

Now onto my opponent's arguments.

Contention 1: The Existence of the Christian God is a possibility.

This is known as an argument from ignorance, or a God of the gaps argument. In past ages people would explain many things by invoking God. Thunder, famine, death, the phases of the moon have all been accorded divine origin at some point. As science has progressed the realm over which God is claimed to have dominion has shrunk, and is continuing to shrink.

The God of the Gaps approach is equally as valid as claiming that the stock market is secretly controlled by squirrels. Obviously that would be an absurd claim, but science is constantly learning new things. What if they were invisible pan dimensional squirrels? What if they could take human form? I don't know everything after all.

Now such a God of the gaps could exist (just for the sake of argument) however this does not address my argument at all. I have shown a definition of God that is logically impossible (and the debate assumes God is subject to logic), advancing science will not re-write the laws of logic. Even if such a God of the Gaps exists he will not be the God that this debate is predicated upon. So this contention is irrelevant.

(Arguments extended from R1)


JacobHession forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Even if I were to fully agree with CON's R1 then that would simply be me accepting the potential existence of a God, which has no bearing on the very specifically defined God of this debate so is irrelevant. Not a single one of my arguments has been addressed or even acknowledged, I strongly urge a vote for PRO.
Thank you.


JacobHession forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by JacobHession 7 years ago
I really apologize for the forfeit. School just started for me and I've been incredibly busy. Virtual Debates aren't that high on my priority list and thus this debate was left incomplete. I apologize.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 7 years ago
Is this going to be a default?
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 7 years ago
PS: I am reposting this because I am testing it to destruction purely for academic interest. I'll stop posting it when I find someone who can beat it, then revise it and offer a modified version if possible.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 7 years ago
How did I lose? PM me your critique if you will.
Posted by shift4101 7 years ago
You just lost this exact same debate against Nacht (I can't vote, I'm just telling you directly you obviously lost). If you feel you were misinterpreted, you should have challenged Nacht to another debate, but instead you posted the exact same debate with the exact same information, and the only reason I could fathom that you would do this is in hopes you would be battled by a less-than worthy opponent, as such JaconHession has proven to be. So regardless win or lose, you fail, sir.

3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Did izbo even READ the debate? I think not.
Vote Placed by izbo10 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: cerebral cant form an argument tha makes any sense he loses even though I am atheist.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: JacobHession forfeited, giving a point of conduct to Cerebral. In addition, Jacob did not attack any of Pro's contentions, introduced his own syllogism that proved that the existence of God was a possibility that was based on an appeal to ignorance, and also falsely assigned himself the burden of proof, which was contrary to the resolution and to Pro's rules (that God was subject to logic). Con's only sources were that of the dictionary, whereas Pro had the support of the bible for his claims...