Attention: is closing and the website will be shut down on June 5, 2022. New Topics can no longer be posted and Sign Up has been disabled. Existing Topics will still function as usual until the website is taken offline. Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account.
The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
14 Points

The God of the Bible Exist

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 670 times Debate No: 120639
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)




The Bible states in Genesis 1: God created" Therefore the claim is made that God exist.
Definitions for God (to be argued for or against) to be based on the Bible.

Should you wish to accept it will be up to Con to provide reasons why the God of the Bible do not exist. Since there is only 3 rounds, Con can start posting from the 1st round.

Please use only 2 arguments maximum per round. Should there be more than two then I will pick the ones I want to respond to without any obligation to answer the rest.

Con also agrees that forfeiting a round is the same as forfeiting the debate.


I will keep it to 2 arguments like you said.

God: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
Existence: the fact or state of living or having objective reality.

Argument 1
God has no prove of its existence. Sticking to the Bible, Eye witness statements are not enough evidence for the existence of God. In order for this to be considered true we must believe what they say. At that point why don't we believe the homeless person saying the world is going to end?

Argument 2
If we take Bible as a true telling or divinely inspired by God it has problems that are clear and since I am sure you would believe God would do no wrong there can't be mistakes in the Bible. I will pick one Bible verse since you weren't really wanting a lot of arguments.

Corinthians 10:13 KJV version: "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, Who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, That ye may be able to bear it. "
From what I gather from this is that humanity has caused their temptation. This is difficult to believe because supposedly God created humanity in a certain way and then God blames humanity in failing to move past from their temptations. God blames children who do not have the capacity to know right from wrong. God blames retards who are delayed in their development. The problem here is that either God does not blame people who are not capable which is not made clear or God does blame people who are incapable of doing right or wrong even though God is supposed to be the source of all moral authority. If God cannot sympathise with children or retards why should we?

Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for keeping to two arguments per round. The reason for this is because some people raise many arguments in a single round and there is not enough space allowed to answer it all. If you ignore some arguments then they claim you could not answer their arguments, If you only answer briefly then they say you did not answer the arguments adequately.

Argument 1 - Rebuttal

Eye witness statements are not enough evidence for the existence of God

In any court of law, Eyewitness accounts are allowed and valid. However, The truthfulness and credibility of the witnesses must be established. The people who witness in the Bible that God exists range from fishermen to doctors. They were persecuted and killed, They did not gain any fame or fortune for preaching the Gospel given by God. The motives and logic behind this indicates that, As witnesses, Their testimony is valid. It is not very logical to assume that these witnesses would be willing to die for a lie or some story that they fabricated. Would you be willing to die for claiming the flying spaghetti monster might exist? Would you be willing to die for believing the homeless guy you mention?

The Jews made a covenant with God and this memorial is repeated even today by fathers who pass down the eye witness accounts from generation to generation that God exists. Does it sound logical that a father would lie to his own flesh and blood? Despite facing death, The Jews never changed their tradition because they regard the testimonies handed down as true and faithful. The Jews keep on returning to Israel despite being dispersed to all nations and persecuted, Do you know why? It's because they say that GOD gave them that land. Some may doubt the accounts but this is a tradition that was handed down uniformly. It did not start with one or two persons while being contradicted by others at the same time. It was handed down by the whole nation and the story never changed over thousands of years. There are even accounts found from people who were not Israelites who testify of the relationship God established with Israel. There is consistency and uniformity in their testimony that cannot be denied. For you it may not seem as much but to establish history or to be considered as true in a court of law, It carries a lot of weight.

To claim that "eyewitness statements are not enough" is a statement that contradicts logic and cannot be proven true beyond any reasonable doubt because eyewitness accounts are used even today (despite of video, Photography, Social media etc. ) as valid evidence to establish truth. If what you say is true then we cast doubt on everything we know about history.

Argument 2 - Rebuttal

I believe that the Bible is perfect in that it records the events faithfully that God wants to be known. The Bible contains lies that were told (for instance Genesis states that Eve was told they will not die, But they did), It contains mistakes made by people and so on. That does not mean that the Bible itself is a lie or is a mistake, It means that the Bible accurately and faithfully recorded past events. However, You are correct that I do not believe that God "would do wrong".

I disagree with your analysis of 1 Cor 10:13 because you take it out of context. The verse you quote specifically says: "Who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able". Paul is saying YOU and in the context of this verse, YOU refers to believers and not all of humanity. Paul specifically addresses his letter to the believers at the Church of the Corinthians, Not anyone and everyone (1 Cor 1:2).

Secondly, "what is common to man" does not justify your interpretation that "humanity has caused their temptation". Paul says in the same letter that believers must keep themselves from idols. Idols are lifeless objects and cannot reasonably be associated with humanity. You first substitute "common to man" with humanity and then end up formulating an argument based on "humanity" and how humanity was created that is something different than temptation that is "common to man" and which can be many different things other than humanity.

But to address your point, Even though your context is wrong, We find the answer to the problem you create in Romans chapter 5:13 "For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law". Children (up to a certain age) or retards who are not able to understand the law is not under it and therefore sin is not imputed to them. It is not only about what is wrong but also about what is just. To present an analogy, Are you suggesting that if someone decide to jump in front of a car and is killed, That we blame the driver? Killing intentionally is wrong, But if you accidently killed someone then you can be acquitted. According to the Bible, God created humanity with the ability to choose, And that is common to all. The act of choosing based on moral decision making involves temptation as well.

I do not see how God can do wrong by being just to those who cannot exercise this common attribute in a logical and reasonable manner like others do.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2


In any court of law, Eyewitness accounts are allowed and valid.

"I don't know how this is a point for your case" " you don"t understand? You stated in your opening argument: "Sticking to the Bible, Eye witness statements are not enough evidence for the existence of God. " Your argument says that eyewitness evidence from the Bible is not enough, Which is why I addresses the reasonableness of the evidence. I also pointed out that whether it is 2000 years ago or in our day, Witness testimony has always been accepted as evidence (regardless of the available technology - which is another point you seem to be confused over). In this case, The eyewitness accounts from the Bible is ENOUGH evidence to satisfy legal requirements that a person named Jesus Christ did exist who is God. You said that God has no evidence, Did you ask for evidence to the contrary? No you did not, Instead you said: "Sticking to the Bible". Since you want evidence, I will give it at the end, But don"t build strawman arguments where I was supposed to supply evidence when you did not ask for it. The debate states: Should you wish to accept it will be up to Con to provide reasons why the God of the Bible do not exist. It does not state anywhere that Pro is obliged to provide evidence for the existence of God. However, Con is free to ask for such evidence but it is not a burden Pro has to address as part of the debate.

"The problem here is we cannot verify if those people who wrote the Bible were telling the truth because they are all dead and if you want to say well information has been passed on through many generations. " Do you realize this is therefore also true of Darwin, The fossil record, Evolutionary theories, History, Science and just about anything else you want to quote from someone who already died?

Mentioning hearsay etc. Does not automatically disprove what I said. I challenge you to read a book called: An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf, LL. D. The book is available at project Gutenberg. Simon Greenleaf wrote the handbook on what is acceptable evidence in a court of law, And if I recall it correctly, He was not always a Christian. His book has not been debunked and proves that the Gospels, As evidence presented in a court of law, Is valid and reliable. You have only shown 3 ways in which you obviously do not understand eyewitness testimony and that you have not proved in any way that you claim, "Eye witness statements are not enough evidence for the existence of God", Is true beyond a reasonable doubt. You accuse me of not providing evidence but fail to supply it yourself in your first round. I have provided reasons why eyewitness testimonies from the Bible are valid based on the rationality and reliability of the sources. I could use other examples from science etc. As well to disprove your claim. You realize that the scientific method is based on observation which relies on the testimony of the observer right? Guess what the observer becomes, The observer becomes an eyewitness that testifies. Eyewitness testimonies is considered valid evidence in various fields, Except when it contradicts what you want to believe, It seems. The law has the power to establish legal status, Right to life, Existence etc. Over which science has no authority.

"Note I used my sources to provide the knowledge required yet you provided claim without stating an outside source supporting your claim". You did not provide any source for argument 1. In argument 2 you quoted from the Bible which you said you would stick by. If the Bible is your primary source (primary because you did not quote any other sources) then you did not provide any outside sources in argument 2 as well. You are being dishonest here, Or like some would say, Just plain lying.

"Let me also remind the audience the law is not put in place to prove that God exists or not". No, It is not and I never claimed it does. I used the law because that is the one area in every society where eyewitness accounts are valid and rules were formulated to establish validity, And again, It contradicts your assertion that eyewitness are "not enough evidence". This should be enough to show you missed your own point and mine. I am not going to address the other nonsense you wrote below about the same subject.

"It is science if God is observable in our natural world". You are very confused about what science is and what it is not. The inner working of black holes, Dark matter and even the Big bang has never been observed but is still regarded as science. The inability to observe something therefore does not automatically disqualifies it as unscientific. The second point here is that science cannot falsify someone"s existence. Science fails because you cannot repeat the experiment because a person dies once and that"s basically it. History can also not be falsified by science. Science can support historical claims but cannot prove or disprove it. The rules for historical evidence is not the same as scientific rules. You are obviously confused. In short, Science has limitations and cannot explain everything.

You state: "If we look at the breakdown there are more atheists (17%) than Catholics (10%) and mainline protestants (16%). " Hold on a second - So basically 10% of Catholics who believe in God and 16% of Protestants who believe in God = 26% which is 9% more than atheist who does not believe in God? How is it possible that you can make mistakes like that and still exist?

Argument 2 - Rebuttal

"Wow. God can do no wrong but divinely inspired books that in your words "contains mistakes" is not wrong? How much belief do you need in that? " Where you actually reading what I wrote?

"Where is your evidence for your side being more true than mine? " Where is my evidence? The fact that he addressed the letter to believers and says "you" over and over should be enough evidence for anyone who can read.

"Quote your source or I am just going to say you are filling in the gaps that the Bible left out or you are believing what people are adding the in the Bible. " You quoted 1 Cor 10:13, Why don"t you try reading the next few verses and perhaps you will not ask a silly question like this again. It is clear that you only pick verses to prove what you want to believe without bothering to understand the context, If you were not, Then you would have noticed the next verse speaks about idols.

"I found this hardly giving points to his/her side instead Pro is playing semantics. " Semantics? I"m not the one who can"t distinguish between the meaning of humanity and "common to man" and then try to sell a lot of excuses to the "audience" in order to hide my mistakes. Your point only stands if the verse you quoted actually said what you claimed it said. Read it again, It does not say what you claim.

"Why didn't God stop humans from being retarded in order for all of humanity to be tested? " The short answer here is that it is because sin entered the world. Instead of going into a long discussion, I will ask you this simple question that shows your faulty logic: If God does not exist why are retarded people still born today?

"We don't have free will". I think this topic is worth a debate on its own.

Reasons to believe:

The writer of the Epistle of Barnabas says that they believed because God foretold He would do something and it came to pass like He said. I will give two examples.

1. In the Book of Job it is said that there are springs at the bottom of the deep oceans. In the 1970s man developed the technology to actually go down that deep and guess what they found? They found springs coming out from the earth at the bottom of the deep ocean. No man could have known it during Job"s day and the only way someone could have known that is if they had supernatural abilities due to lack of modern technology.

2. Jesus Christ said that the Temple would be destroyed and the reason is because the period of God"s grace was to start. So in other words, God planned to do away with the Temple, It was not some coincidence. In 70AD, The Temple was destroyed, Just like Jesus said. It was destroyed by the Romans who got angry at Jewish (not Christian) rebels who opposed their rule. This was not due to a conspiracy by Christians and involved nations. You need some extraordinary abilities to direct the actions of nations.

You do not prove your argument by getting the context wrong (misquoting), Or by faulty statistics (17% is more that 16% and 10% combined? ), Or by constructing strawman arguments. Please read the debate proposals before making claims that are not part of the Debate"s resolution.


omar2345 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Country-of-dummies 3 years ago
Now look at this sh*t everyone! Old Omar and backwardsman are back at it again, Enemies of God and voting for each other so each other wins. . . Driving up win ratios for them. . .
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago

I did not forfeit. It was DDO and this occured during the voting period. Meaning I finished the debate then it removed my arguments.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
This was such an awful debate.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
Doesn't god have to be perfect to exist? The gods of the bible are not perfect. The gods of the bible have to many descriptive failings, Contradictions and limiting attributes to be perfect gods.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
An uncaused God is more complicated than an uncaused Big Bang. When it comes to comparing arguments where there is no hope of actually getting any physical evidence, There is a long-standing heuristic to help distinguish between theories, Called Occam's Razor: after all evidence is accounted for, The theory with fewest assumptions is more likely to be true. God requires many properties and complexities such as consciousness, Thought, Personality, Creative drive, Love, An internal logic ordering its thoughts so that it can think coherently and rationally, Memory, Etc: All of these properties must have been derived from somewhere. It turns out that God is a vastly more complicated thing than the Big Bang and the fundamental laws of the Universe.
Posted by ToasterMinistry 3 years ago
The bible has too many inconsistencies within itself and in reality
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by backwardseden 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 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: dsjpk5 always tries to play a god with his vothing. So his voting does not count with his attempts to sway the debates, all of them, towards his side. Pro "The Bible states in Genesis 1: God created" Therefore the claim is made that God exist." This is not proof that his god exists as his bible is not proof for anything truthful.
Vote Placed by Thoht 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 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: deleted an argument of Omar's. I would think even Pro would prefer to repost the debate prior to voting.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 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: According to the rules, forfeiting a round means you forfeited the debate. Otherwise, I thought boy sides did an admirable job.

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