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

The God of the Bible Exists

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  
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: 5/12/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,467 times Debate No: 75185
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (3)




I am a Bible-believing Christian and I assert that much evidence is readily available which supports the existence of Jehovah Elohim, the Lord God of scripture. I will allow my opponent to decide in which direction this debate shall go (e.g. ethics, science, logic, philosophy, etc.). I would rather not make a case for God based on philosophy if he would rather have scientific evidence, and likewise, I would rather not make a case for God based on science if he has ethical objections to the claim for the existence of God. And certainly Con may opt for evidence from multiple fields of inquiry.

Round 1 - Acceptance and declaration of Con's decision for the direction of this debate.

Round 2 - Opening Arguments

Round 3 - Rebuttals

Round 4 - Rebuttals

Round 5 - Closing Statements (no new arguments or rebuttals)

I look forward to a lively and challenging debate! :)


I accept the challenge; I have no objections about whatever method of evidence or proof Pro would like to use. Let it not be said that I sought to prevent any method from being aired: bring it all, give us the best that you've got!
Debate Round No. 1



Greetings. My aim is to demonstrate evidence in support of Jehovah God as the Creator of the universe. Since my opponent has decided not to request a particular area of evidence, I shall begin by simply arguing from genetic information.

A reasonable prediction of the creation model would be that evidence exists within organisms which testify to their being originally created by an intelligent agent as opposed to unguided natural processes. If it can be shown that the blueprint for all organic life, namely genomes, must have been created by an intelligent agent, any naturalistic model would be inplausable.

It must be understood that we are dealing with historical science which by nature requires us to compare evidence to hypothetical models about the past when we weren't there. Since we cannot observe, test, or repeat past events, the normal operational scientific method cannot ultimately be used to justify any one position, rather, in a forensic science manner, we can only look at current, observable evidence and determine logically which model, if any, it best supports. While we can never ultimately prove any historical event in a purely mathematical sense, we can certainly invalidate a particular model. With the following evidence I shall support the creation model while simultaneously invalidating any naturalistic hypothesis of abiogenesis.

Argument from Genetic Information

The cells of all organic life forms contain information in the form of genetic code. The chain of genetic code known as DNA harbors the amino acids which themselves contain no semantic meaning, but when placed in a linguistic sequence, can be readily utilized in forming every phenotype known to biology.

The living cell demonstrates a system of communication, particularly between DNA and proteins. DNA codes for proteins which go on to form every part of a creature, including the very DNA from which it was coded. DNA is a macro-molecule in the shape of a double-helix with a sugar-phosphate backbone.

The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of those bases are the same in all people. The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences, or even the way 1's and 0's appear in a certain order to form binary computer code.

DNA bases pair up with each other, A with T and C with G, to form units called base pairs. Each base is also attached to a sugar molecule and a phosphate molecule. Together, a base, sugar, and phosphate are called a nucleotide. Nucleotides are arranged in two long strands that form a spiral called a double helix. The structure of the double helix is somewhat like a ladder, with the base pairs forming the ladder’s rungs and the sugar and phosphate molecules forming the vertical sidepieces of the ladder.
DNA is a double helix formed by base pairs attached to a sugar-phosphate backbone.

An important property of DNA is that it can replicate, or make copies of itself. Each strand of DNA in the double helix can serve as a pattern for duplicating the sequence of bases. This is critical when cells divide because each new cell needs to have an exact copy of the DNA present in the old cell.

DNA serves as the blueprint for every creature's phenotype. Since DNA is a language system in which communication occurs between a sender and receiver, it can rightfully be said to contain true information.

"To fully characterise the concept of information, five aspects must be considered: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. Information is represented (that is, formulated, transmitted, stored) as a language. From a stipulated alphabet, the individual symbols are assembled into words (code). From these words (each word having been assigned a meaning), sentences are formed according to the firmly defined rules of grammar (syntax). These sentences are the bearers of semantic information. Furthermore, the action intended/carried out (pragmatics) and the desired/achieved goal (apobetics) belong of necessity to the concept of information. . . an encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose. We term any entity meeting the requirements of this definition as 'universal information' (UI). "

In the function of the genome within living cells we find statistics in the form of four letters which are syntactically organized to give the semantic meaning for transcription and translation. The semantic meaning encoded in the genome is pragmatically utilized in the formation of proteins and thus integral to the process of replication which is a part of the apobetic, or intended goal of the digital code.

In the reference I provided, one will notice Dr. Werner Gitt's four scientific laws of information (SLI). I will assume for the moment that Con agrees with the first two laws, if not he can explain why. The contention certainly arises with the 3rd and 4th laws.

A material entity cannot generate a non-material entity.

Universal information is a non-material fundamental entity.

Universal information cannot be created by statistical processes.

Universal information can only be produced by an intelligent sender.

In order to refute SLI-3, one would need to demonstrate even one example of statistical processes producing UI which meets the criteria of the five levels of information. The primary reason such an example is infeasible is that statistical processes can never produce information containing semantic meaning, let alone pragmatic, purposeful code.

SLI-4 is substantiated by Gitt's SLI-4a-d:

Every code is based upon a mutual agreement between sender and receiver.

There is no new universal information without an intelligent sender.

Every information transmission chain can be traced back to an intelligent sender.

Attributing meaning to a set of symbols is an intellectual process requiring intelligence.


Information intrinsically depends upon an original act of intelligence to construct it, therefore the information seen in living cells testifies to having been originally created by an intelligent Creator. Note that this argument is not based upon the inability for naturalistic/statistical processes alone to account for the formation of genetic information, but rather my case is built upon what we do know about genetic code and function. Therefore this is not a god-of-the-gaps argument, as the claim is based on observation. Not also that this is not an argument from complexity but from specified universal information. To refute my case is actually quite a simple task; one must only need demonstrate a single case where universal information, of the type seen in genetic code, is derived entirely from purely material sources.




Let's find out a little bit about this God of the Bible who my opponent claims to be able to prove the existence of.

Richard Dawkins once famously said on the subject:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

And he was spot on the money! Each and every one of his indictments is clearly justified by the bible; Pro must prove that this God exists, one capable of all the disgusting and immoral acts that we read about in the Bible. The God who is pro-torture, pro-slavery and pro-genocide.

I'll run through list finding verses to justify each accusation; please note that I have many verses to choose from to demonstrate each claim; I'll limit myself to one for each descriptive.

"Jealous and proud of it"
Exodus 34:14 [1]
Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

This was literally dictated by God to Moses according to the Bible. In other words, God is so proud of his jealousy that he says his name is "Jealous".

Deuteronomy 22:11-12 [2]
Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.
Make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear.

Exodus 20:5 [3]
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.

Is that just? To punish somebody's great great grandchildren for thier sins?

Joshua 24:19 [4]
You are not able to serve the Lord. He is a holy God; he is a jealous God. He will not forgive your rebellion and your sins.

"...control-freak; a vindictive..."
Deuteronomy 25:15-68 [5]
I don't have space to quote the whole of this vile set of verses (but I encourage the hardy reader to check out the link [5] at the bottom). Here are some choice snippets:

...if you do not obey the Lord your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today...
...The fruit of your womb will be cursed...
...The Lord will send on you curses, confusion and rebuke in everything you put your hand to, until you are destroyed and come to sudden ruin...
...The Lord will plague you with diseases until he has destroyed you from the land you are entering to possess...
...The Lord will strike you with wasting disease, with fever and inflammation, with scorching heat and drought, with blight and mildew, which will plague you until you perish...

...Your carcasses will be food for all the birds and the wild animals...
...The Lord will afflict you with the boils of Egypt and with tumors, festering sores and the itch, from which you cannot be cured...
...You will be pledged to be married to a woman, but another will take her and rape her...
...Your sons and daughters will be given to another nation, and you will wear out your eyes watching for them day after day, powerless to lift a hand...

...The Lord will afflict your knees and legs with painful boils that cannot be cured, spreading from the soles of your feet to the top of your head....

...Because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you. Even the most gentle and sensitive man among you will have no compassion on his own brother or the wife he loves or his surviving children, and he will not give to one of them any of the flesh of his children that he is eating. It will be all he has left because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of all your cities. The most gentle and sensitive woman among you—so sensitive and gentle that she would not venture to touch the ground with the sole of her foot—will begrudge the husband she loves and her own son or daughter the afterbirth from her womb and the children she bears. For in her dire need she intends to eat them secretly because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of your cities.

If you do not carefully follow all the words of this law, which are written in this book, and do not revere this glorious and awesome name—the Lord your God— the Lord will send fearful plagues on you and your descendants, harsh and prolonged disasters, and severe and lingering illnesses....

Isaiah 34:1-3 [6]
Come near, you nations, and listen; pay attention, you peoples!
Let the earth hear, and all that is in it, the world, and all that comes out of it!
The Lord is angry with all nations; his wrath is on all their armies.
He will totally destroy them, he will give them over to slaughter.
Their slain will be thrown out, their dead bodies will stink; the mountains will be soaked with their blood.

"...ethic cleanser..."
1 Samuel 15:1-3 [7]
Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. This is what the Lord Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

"...a misogynistic..."
Deuteronomy 21:11-13 [8]
If you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her,you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.

Leviticus 20:13 [9]
If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads

Deuteronomy 7:6 [10]
For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.


Leviticus 26:22 [11]
I will send wild animals against you, and they will rob you of your children, destroy your cattle and make you so few in number that your roads will be deserted.

Deuteronomy 20:16-17 [12]
However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them — the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites — as the Lord your God has commanded you.

Deuteronomy 13:6-10 [13]
If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your handmust be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God.

1 Samuel 5:9 [14]
But after they had moved it, the Lord’s hand was against that city, throwing it into a great panic. He afflicted the people of the city, both young and old, with an outbreak of tumors.

Ezekiel 38:23 [15]
And so I will show my greatness and my holiness, and I will make myself known in the sight of many nations. Then they will know that I am the Lord.

Ezekiel 23:34 [16]
Thou shalt even drink it and suck it out, and thou shalt break the sherds thereof, and pluck off thine own breasts: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.

"...capriciously malevolent..."
Ezekiel 12:20 [17]
The inhabited towns will be laid waste and the land will be desolate. Then you will know that I am the Lord.

Ezekiel 38:21-23 [18]
I will summon a sword against Gog on all my mountains, declares the Sovereign Lord. Every man’s sword will be against his brother. I will execute judgment on him with plague and bloodshed; I will pour down torrents of rain, hailstones and burning sulfur on him and on his troops and on the many nations with him. And so I will show my greatness and my holiness, and I will make myself known in the sight of many nations. Then they will know that I am the Lord.

In short, I would say that the lack of blood and guts in major cities across the World is evidence that there is (thank goodness) no such bloodthirsty a monster as Yahweh. I sincerely hope that my opponent can't prove otherwise!


Debate Round No. 2


In my estimation, Con has not made a case against the existence of God. He in fact has not made any claim against the existence of God beyond his statement, "I would say that the lack of blood and guts in major cities across the World is evidence that there is (thank goodness) no such bloodthirsty a monster as Yahweh." While the relationship between the prospect of a "bloodshed-free" city and the non-existence of God seems remarkably vague, the existence of such a city would in no way disprove God's existence. If God were "bloodthirsty," His lack of bloodshed in any city or cities would not negate His existence. Indeed, scripture itself reveals various times of peace and prosperity such as during king Solomon's reign.

Nevertheless, a notable assumption underlining Con's claims is that God's seeming horrendous character should be grounds for dismissing the notion of His existence altogether. This line of reasoning however is in no way logical; their must be other reasons for rejecting His existence beyond disdain of His perceived character. One's perception of the character of God has no weight as to the veracity of His existence. God can exist and be evil. God can exist and be contradictory; He can say He is good and righteous when He is really evil. These possibilities do not negate His existence.

Beyond this, Con makes these claims without explaining why they should be considered wrong (if that is indeed what he is claiming, as he did not say that any of these characteristics of God were wrong). If this is Con's intention, then he fails to provide a standard by which to judge the ethical nature of God based on His proclamations, commands and actions. I hope Con does not want to go "there," as defining a moral standard from human thought, which in a naturalistic/materialistic worldview are derivatives of unguided cognitive chemical processes, is utterly relativistic and ultimately impossible. I will defend and expand upon my statements concerning Con's argument in the following round if necessary.

BTW, this is why I asked beforehand if Con would like to decide where this debate will go as now we are essentially having two debates, one on science and the other on morality. Not to mention a moral argument in no way refutes a science-based argument. I hope Con drops the moral argument, as it certainly will not lend any support to his position, and instead opts to focus on rebutting my claims concerning genetic information. If however he wishes to continue with his case based on ethics, I will gladly address each accusation for the sake of defending the character of my Father.

Also, God's name is Jehovah, not Yahweh, just so you know the name of the one you are blaspheming. The name Yahweh is not found in any Hebrew manuscript. Here is a debate I had on the topic in which I provide some information , for your prospective interest: (

On to Con...


And now, according to Pro's rules, I am allowed to rebut; I would happily have just rebutted Pro's claims (for Pro has the burden of
proof) but I was not allowed to do so under the rules that Pro laid out in R1.

The first thing to note is that Pro has not yet made a single argument in favour of the existence of the God of the Bible; at best, Pro has demonstrated that Deism is right. At best.

I could literally concede every point that Pro makes (not that I'm inclined to, of course!) and we would be no closer to finding any illumination about the existence of the God of the Bible. So, like my R2 offering, this offering is irrelevant to the debate... I may make some convincing arguments - but I have no need to do so... thus far, Pro has not even tried to meet their burden of proof regarding the God of the Bible.

I note that Pro has a surprisingly good grasp of basic biology; so far, so good... Pro talks about "a blueprint" when it would be more apt to talk about "a recipe" but, other than that, I can find no fault in Pro's first nine paragraphs. Then it all starts to fall apart!

The biggest issue, though, arises in Pro's final paragraph:

"Information intrinsically depends upon an original act of intelligence to construct it".

No, this is a major fallacy; this is precisely corrected by the lesson that we can all learn from "On the Origin of Species" - the sublime truth is that information can be created by circumstances (competing individuals) without the need for "an original act of intelligence". Thus I refute that which I need not refute and await Pro's first proposition as to why we should believe that the "God of the Bible" exists... Pro, it is your burden to show that such an entity (call Him Jehovah or Yahweh or God for all I care) exists. Evolution by natural selection cannot point to any god (even its absence can only hint at a Deistic god) - far less the God of the Bible! And I think that I've shown that the "God of the Bible" is a filthy immoral swine... I didn't even have to resort to showing how the bible is pro slavery (as is YHWH)... this is not even, as Pro asserts, an argument from Evil... I'm not about trying to prove that there's no perfectly moral creator by demonstrating evil in the World... I'm simply trying to show that there could be no such thing as the "God of the Bible" in a World that was not literally painted red with the blood of the suffering... for such are the claims of the bible that the existence of atheists and believers in other faiths with intact bodies is enough to prove that no such monster exists.
Debate Round No. 3


creationtruth forfeited this round.


AndyHood forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


I would like to thank my opponent for what I assume was a forfeiture due to my request that he do so that we may have equal debate time.

Response to Con's Round 3 Claims

Con states, "The first thing to note is that Pro has not yet made a single argument in favour of the existence of the God of the Bible; at best, Pro has demonstrated that Deism is right. At best." What I have done is presented evidence which is consistent with and supportive of the claim that the God of the Bible exists. I certainly cannot adequately address every point in relation to the biblical God's existence, so I have chosen to argue from a powerful scientific line of reasoning which supports the account of Genesis where God specially creates every original kind of creature without any sort of gradualistic, step-by-step process. What we find in the study of genetic function and information resoundingly supports this model. Evidence for "deism" as Con claims, is still more evidence in support of Jehovah than Con has given in his counter argument to the claim. Con has not argued for the existence of another deity, thus the claim that this God who intelligently designed the original genomes of all living organisms remains uncontested. It would be unfair for Con to present a new argument for the likelihood of another deity in his final round as I would be unable to address his claims.

Con states, "No, this is a major fallacy; this is precisely corrected by the lesson that we can all learn from 'On the Origin of Species' - the sublime truth is that information can be created by circumstances (competing individuals) without the need for 'an original act of intelligence'. Thus I refute that which I need not refute. . ." Con has certainly not refuted my claims of genetic information. Beyond not providing actual evidence to support his claims, he fails to understand that Darwin's outdated book deals with the origin of novel species within an existing population; it does not address the formation of the first life beyond a few speculative hypotheses. Darwin is certainly irrelevant in light of my argument from genetic information as DNA was unknown to him. Besides this, if Con is referring to natural selection, he should understand that, at best, this natural mechanism is a culling process which allows for the diversification of existing creatures, removing traits while favoring, and keeping others which enable the creature to survive. Natural selection itself cannot add or create novel genetic information, rather, it merely selects from what is already genetically available. The creation of novel genetic information remains an enigma in evolutionary biology. All studies of natural selection have demonstrated the diminishing of genetic information via speciation and specialized adaptation. Natural selection works against the general theory of evolution; it also obviously fails to address the initial formation of DNA, as natural selection, as defined in biology, can only act upon pre-existing genetic information.

Con states, "And I think that I've shown that the 'God of the Bible' is a filthy immoral swine..." In response to this statement I ask: by what standard has Con objectively shown Jehovah is immoral? If his statements cannot be supported objectively beyond his personal subjective opinion, his arguments will not stand on their own, let alone against my objective science claim. We can test and observe mind-derived information and how it functions, we cannot do so with morality beyond how various moral constructs may affect physical reality, but this itself is unsupportive of any affirmative claim of immorality. If we, for example agreed on a moral standard of murder and said that any sentient, conscious being found guilty of killing another is immoral, than we have to agree that God is immoral. But since God is the Creator of all other sentient, conscious beings, He has authoritative dominion over the well-being of all created beings. Since the God of the Bible in particular has reasons for allowing men to die, or if you like, killing men, primarily as the result of a judgment against men for their sins, it is improper to equivocate God's actions against a man with those between men. Regardless, if God created the universe and all that is in it, He has the authoritative right to make the rules and hold men accountable to these precepts. One cannot make an objective moral claim against God's commands or actions beyond the philosophical domain of "I think."

Con says, ". . .for such are the claims of the bible that the existence of atheists and believers in other faiths with intact bodies is enough to prove that no such monster exists." On the contrary, the Bible's claim is that God would have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth, that He does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, that His grace is such that He withholds judgment so that men may have the opportunity to seek Him and find His gospel of salvation, and that those who, upon death or the second coming of Christ, have not sought Him and received His gospel gift of salvation, will, by God, be judged, condemned in their sins, and be cast into the Lake of Fire both as a matter of justice and preservation of the holiness of heaven. God cannot allow sin to be in His presence, firstly because He is pure in righteousness, and perfectly holy, and thus sinful men would be cast away from His presence, but secondly He desires for us to be in a new heavens and Earth where there will be everlasting peace, and thus such people who are unregenerated and still in their state of sinful guilt are forbidden from His kingdom and new creation. Men must either receive God's gospel gift as payment for their sins or must sadly pay for their sins with their soul. To reject God is to reject life, as God is the author of all life, and since we are made in His image and given His breath of life, we are eternal souls which, if cast away from Him as a judgment for our sins, will live an eternity apart from Him in torment. Since God is love, peace, righteousness and all that is good, the Lake of Fire is the absence, or rather, the opposite of these innately desired pleasures. These are of course all claims of the Bible which are presented to demonstrate that Con's claims concerning God's immorality; the Bible presents logical reasons for His allowance and sovereign judgment of death, suffering and damnation. Con's entire moral argument fails to consider the greater context of scripture. One can cite an instance of WWII where a particular country attacks another and label it immoral, and possibly be incorrect if the historical context was taken into account and it was found that they were defending themselves from a previous attack by another country. Context is key, especially when dealing with historical narratives. I will provide scriptural support for my biblical claims if requested by either Con or a prospective voter.


Thus far I am the only one to provide evidence which addresses the resolution. My claims concerning genetic information remain uncontested by any actual scientific evidence or even any supported scientific reasoning. Saying, "Darwin disproves your case" is not supported scientific reasoning. The question remains: why should Darwin disprove my claims?

Again, for Con to bring in new arguments or the missing support for his "scientific reasoning" would be unfair as I would be unable to address it. Since this is my final round, all I have done is merely restated my claims and counter claims, demonstrated why natural selection does not address my argument from genetic information, provided the biblical context of God's "immorality," and explained why Con's failed, subjective argument from immorality does not address my objective argument from observable scientific data.

I would like to thank my opponent for their time and effort. I would also like to thank the prospective reader for their time and potential votes. Constructive criticism of both our arguments is certainly encouraged! =)

On to Con's final round. . .


AndyHood forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by creationtruth 3 years ago
AndyHood - BTW, in response to your response to tschuck, I don't doubt that you have the capacity for recognizing ethical transgressions. Indeed, if your claims concerning God were true, this would certainly cast doubt on the claims of a loving and righteous Lord. The biblical position is that you, even as an unbeliever, have a God-given conscience which bears witness of the eternal moral law of God written on your heart (Romans 2:15). Therefore, you are able to discern right and wrong, that is, at least until you come to a point on any given matter where you potentially "sear your conscience," which is to say, you pervert that which you intrinsically knew was wrong. More can be said about this, but to sum up my point: you have the capacity for morality, only, you are unable to make sense of this innate truth beyond pointing to mere group-think or majority opinion.

P.S. - I actually think moral arguments against the God of the Bible are valid, if found to be true, as long as the person making such an argument concedes to the existence of a Law-giving god. That is to say, in order to posit such an argument, one must have a moral standard which is derived from the creator. For instance, a Muslim who holds the Qur'an to be true will have a much better case against the God of the Bible as he can point to his god's moral standard. The problem is, no such valid argument exists since the Bible is internally consistent and provides logical reasons for evil, suffering, and God's judgments which are in complete accordance with His holiness. righteousness, and justice.
Posted by creationtruth 3 years ago
dhauptman98 - I believe I made it clear that I was presenting the biblical stance on these issues in response to Con's biblical claims, not using these as evidence for God or support for my argument in any way. Con made an ethical case against scriptural claims and events, therefore it was only proper that I responded with biblical answers. I also could have responded to each individual claim, but for sake of time and for the purposes of this debate I opted to simply point out the fallacy of arguing against a scientific claim for God based on a subjective moral misotheistic argument: one that is severely incongruent with the contextual teachings of scripture.
Posted by dhauptman98 3 years ago
In round 4, Pro just states beliefs of his. First of all, we do not know if God is a he. We do not know that he doesn't take pleasure in death. We also do not know that there will be a Lake of Fire. We do not know that God will judge us. We cannot read his/her/it's mind because we have never seen or talked to God. Pro just states beliefs and doesn't look at the real factors that play apart of this argument. Therefore, Pro is invalid and making claims that doesn't have truth behind them.
Posted by creationtruth 3 years ago
Sorry about the forfeiture. I was unable to respond in time for personal reasons. I ask that you forfeit your round 4 to allow for equal debate time, but its up to you.
Posted by AndyHood 3 years ago
@tschuk: that is amongst the most offensive nonsense that Christians often aim at Atheists... do me a favour and read my debate here:

I think you'll find that I can provide quite enough authority to justify the notion that slavery, torture and genocide are morally repugnant to most human beings... is THAT enough for you to shut your beak about atheists not having any moral foundation and thus not being allowed to have valid opinions? Because I could take a similar tack and say that any fool who believes in an imaginary friend who is an all-powerful sky-daddy who likes to smite people and just loves slavery, genocide and torture is not worthy of contributing to any sensible moral debate. I tend not to, but when you come up with that utter horse manure, it does tempt me sorely...
Posted by tschuk 3 years ago
It would be nice if AndyHood could make a good argument against the existence of God for once instead of complaining like a small child over parts of Scripture that He deems offensive.

It's rather funny how AndyHood references these "immoral" acts, but has yet to provide an Objective Standard of Morality.

Until he does so his arguments are considered null, due to the fact that arguments from morality are subjective (As he is Atheist and cannot provide an objective standard), He is really just giving opinions. None of which have any sway on proving God's existence.

I have found AndyHood rather hilarious for a while now, given that He is a grown man and rather intelligent, yet he still makes moral arguments.
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
@creationtruth, Pro *did* make a case -- he said there was no reason to believe that such a God exists, virtually using Occam's razor and the celestial teapot analogy [and Hitchens's razor].
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
@AndyHood, yeah, Creationtruth has challenged me too =)
Posted by AndyHood 3 years ago
It was a direct personal challenge from creationtruth to me, so that would have been hard!
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
I should have seen this in the challenge period :(
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro, due to Con forfeiting more rounds than Pro. Arguments also go to Pro, while Pro gave arguments for the existence of a deity, Con only gave evidence as to how the Christian god is immoral, which is irrelevant to the debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited more rounds of debate than Pro, and Pro informed Con about the forfeits, though Con did not do the same. Con made *no* case for the existence of the God of the Bible, merely attempting to demonstrate that the God of the Bible is immoral, which, as Pro notes, is *entirely irrelevant* to the resolution. "The lack of blood and guts" can hardly be considered evidence for God, and Con seems to be arguing for an alternate resolution. While, as Con notes, Pro did argue for a God of deism, Pro was at least *supportive* of the assertion that the God of the Bible exists, which is absolutely not the case for Con. Con's objection to Pro's arguments was based on the assumption that evolution is true, which Pro rejected with evidence, and the arg from genetic information justified thus. Ultimately, both sides had deeply flawed arguments, Pro arguing for deism and Con arguing for God's immorality, but Pro's deviation was less. Thus, Pro wins. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff more rounds