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

The god of the bible does not 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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,075 times Debate No: 120102
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (100)
Votes (2)




Prove that the god of the bible exists

1. Prove that there is only one creator/ god.
2. Test, Demonstrate and assert this god of the bible's existence.
3. No so-called scientific methodology will be allowed since the bible did not present any scientific evidence to prove its god's existence.
4. Chapters and verses only please using either the KJV, NIV, NLT translations/ versions only.

5. For extra credit, Prove that any god from any religion has ever existed.

6. Dsjpk5 is disqualified from any voting procedures for this debate.


There are 4, 200 religions in the world most of which stem back to 5 wide religions. Almost all religions put God at the center of their faith. Christians, Sikhs, Muslims, And Jews all believe the universe were made by a grand creator. Something that divides a lot of these religions within themselves as well as believers and non believers is The Big Bang Theory.

"Prove that there is only one creator/god. " | The Big Bang Theory.
This theory is typically used by some people on both sides of the debate as an example of why both God is real and not real. The Big Bang now widely acknowledged as the most probable beginning of our universe refers to a pinpointed beginning to our existence. We do not know what caused it but all of a sudden the universe was born as an extremely high density and extremely high temperature pin prick that quickly expanded large enough to cool and for atoms to form. Using Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, And using Edward Hubble's microscope observation that galaxies are moving away from one another, We have been able to decipher that since the beginning of time as we know it, The Big Bang, The universe has been continuing to expand. If there was a bang so to speak it must've been created by something bigger than the universe itself. Scientists have gone into further detail about the creation, Suggesting the first 380, 000 years of the universe were dark as it was simply too hot for light to shine. After all those years, Matter cooled enough for atoms to form during what is known as the Era of Recombination, Which according to NASA resulted in a transparent electrical neutral gas which caused a flash of light during the Big Bang. This is detectable today as cosmic microwave background radiation. If we forget the time scale for a moment, This sounds very familiar to the Christian ear, God says "Let there be light" and there was light. Although one can argue that focusing on that sentence alone is somewhat selective.

"Test, Demonstrate and assert this god of the bible's existence. " | Ancient Scriptures AKA the bible.
The Quran is also pretty affirmative of the Big Bang in part. Although it is never fully mentioned, A period of existence before the earth began is noted with many Islamic leaders acknowledging the big bang as consistent with what God relays to Mohammed. Atheists on the other hand see the Big Bang and similar scientific discoveries like shoestring theories, Has proof that there is no god. Many believers tend to regard their religious scripture highly, And many but not all use only words found in said scripture to back up their beliefs rather than measurable evidence. Everything we have discovered in the last 100 years or so has shaken religion to it's very core. Hubble's discovery that galaxies were huddling apart and the ability to measure that cosmic microwave background information has provided solid evidence that the Big Bang happened which is a blow to some religions that refuse to acknowledge this. Atheists somehow seem to think that the fact that some religions have been exposed to contain a few scientific flaws means that god is not real but that isn't quite accurate.

There must be a creator.
If we can agree that there was a Big bang, A beginning point if you will, All of the laws on the earth and the universe beyond tell us that something can't come from nothing. This is the second law of thermodynamics. There must have been a catalyst or trigger to the start. What or who was the catalyst? Or are we to deny every law of physics and say that all the matter that emerged in the Big Bang simply came from nowhere? But if it did come from somewhere, Then where? Was it God? If it was indeed divine intervention then who or what is the focus of that divinity. Are they god? If so, Are they alone? If God is alone then why did countless religions refer to the creator as a "he" when the genderization in itself causes a pretty big issue. Is God genderless? Therefore living beyond the need to be defined by their own ability to reproduce. If something created something else that in turn must have a creator. Extending back there are two probabilities, The Big bang either just happened or it was ignited, We simply cannot say. Let's look at life closer to home and one of the major domestic blows delivered to religious arguments for God. Religion is an issue with so many varying strands of belief meaning that not all believers can be "right" so to speak. An early issue with the bible for example is a creation of Adam and Eve. The whole Garden of Eden exchange and the suggestion that the God made every animal we know today in its fully developed form. What we know now and can now prove was that there were organisms and animals that predate human existence by millions of years. Why do religious books such as the old testament, The Hebrew bible and the Quran not mention dinosaurs for example. Thousands of dinosaur bones have been found in North America, China and Argentina. We have found bones dating back from 68 million years, And fossils over 2 million years old. We can even see their bones hanging in museums for ourselves. Speaking of bones and fossils, We have enough of them to all but prove evolution. A theory developed from Charles Darwin's concept of survival of the fittest and change through adaptation. We can see -- physically see the whales descended from land mammals. Species are continuing to evolve. Humans are getting taller and moths have literally changed color since the industrial revolution. The evidence of dinosaurs falls into religion as the scientific support of evolution. But what comes to a blow to religion isn't necessarily a knock to the existence of God. Many modern believers will take religious scripture with a more light hearted approach and accept them as guidelines of how to interpret their faith. Perhaps the God we speak of is the harmony of the path that goes to physics rather than a higher being. Is God particles and energy that make up the world we know and the rules we live by? Another strand the God debate very much concerns the human condition. Many argue that if god were real, Why would he not prevent disasters and protect innocent people. Where was God during the boxing day tsunamis of 2004. Where was god during the 2 world wars. Where was god when the atomic bombs were dropped? And where was he during 9/11. Where is god now? If God was real, Why would he let people suffer in such intense and cruel ways. Those who believe strongly in the bible will tell you that God allows suffering because we must know suffering to know love or its all part of Gods plan. Others who argue for God as a force of science say sure there may be a rule setter, A creator behind the big bang but they are so huge and so inconceivable to us that perhaps they wouldn't concern themselves with our earthly issues. Way too small and insignificant for them to even see. On the flip side of murder and genocide, We have supposed miracles. Our whole existence could be considered a miracle of sorts. And that we don't yet know how to explained what happened. By all accounts, The big bang, Evolution, All of it, It seems miraculous. Miracles can be considered both divine or coincidental depending on your outlook. Many who feel the presence of God in their lives who see miraculous things happen to them and their family members will be convinced of the point of almost proof as the existence of a guardian angel or divine power or being.

Your 3rd point. Science is needed in the debate, It's a determining factor. | Science.
In fact, Some find science to be a reaffirmation of their beliefs as the miracles of the universe and life on earth are brought to light. Many see the perfect conditions under which the big bang was triggered as well as the evolution and the ideal conditions of our earth allow life to flourish as evidence of intelligent design. Indeed many see the apparent laws of physics as further confirmation that rules have been set in biology, Cosmology and the universe as we know it. Wasn't our path to existence to score too perfect? Change a few tiny factors for example, The ideal position of Jupiter in our solar system which attracts many asteroids away from the earth and it all very well could have not happened. Interestingly celebrated 90th and 20th century scientist Albert Einstein closely followed the views of 17th century philosopher Baruch Spinoza. He believed the notion of God to be an expression of the underlined unity of the universe.

Mathematicians | Physicists.
Many who promote science over miracles will instead say that miracles are events that have explanations and we just don't know them yet. For example Isaac Newton noted how gravity from the sun keeps planets in their orbits. Why he could not explain AKA how these planets got into orbits in the first place in or rotated around the sun in the same direction, He put down to a divine miracle. He said "This most beautiful system of the sun, Planets and comets, Could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. " However, Centuries later, Pierre Laplace was able to fill in the gaps as to the mechanics of the universe. There are of course still some things we can't explain, But for some that doesn't mean that there isn't an explanation. No scientist will ever claim to know all the answers to the questions posed by the universe. However, They will actively seek to find them overtime.
Debate Round No. 1


We'll once again use the 3 strike rule. 3x's And oh you Chitty Chitty Bong Bong and you are outta hair.
1. The big bang = see rule #3 = strike 1.

2. Test, Demonstrate and assert this god of the bible's existence.
Well wow, You used the Quran. And to make matters much worse for you, You didn't follow #4 "Chapters and verses only please using either the KJV, NIV, NLT translations/ versions only. " And *yawn* you decided to also apply partial #3 which was also a very bad no no. Strike 2.

"There must be a creator. "
I'll indulge you because I guess you MUST want your bones to be scattered unto the screaming blue toxic waste messiahs of the gibberish underworld that you've created for your bloated egotistical ballooned malnourished self pitied self. So "There must be a creator? " According to what imbecile toy in a college marching band? You? What grade of silver spur redneck church going beatniks playing yodeling grunge volleyball class of synchronized swimming classes have you passed to come up with this ideal?
See, Who are agreeing that there was a "big bang" even though that's the general consensus?
"All of the laws on the earth and the universe beyond tell us that something can't come from nothing. " Well that's 100% false. It comes in two fold. 1. Stephen Hawking, Perhaps the smartest person who has ever lived, And his colleague have come up with a mathematical equation that proves that something does come from nothing. Mathematical equations are the only facts that there are. 2 + 2 = 4 no matter which language you speak. Your unproven god/ unproved creator can be disproved no matter which language you speak. 2. The Maya invented the number 0. The number 0 represents and or is nothing. Granted that number IS something. However before the number 0 was invented, It was nothing. Absolutely something comes from nothing.
Absolutely not "must" there not be a creator. There"s no need, Necessity, And is/ was not a requirement.
The rest of that paragraph is philosophical gibberish that doesn't make sense to anyone. So we"ll cut it completely off and ask a few questions that you cannot answer properly without putting your religion on the line. 1. Why must your answer be the god of the bible? Since you do not know, And it could very well be another god and you did not offer any other explanation, Naturally, For any other god, Your answer is a direct and proper "I don"t know. " 2. Why must there be only one god/ creator? Why not thousands, Millions, Billions, Quadrillions? Since you do not know and cannot prove otherwise, Your answer is once again "I don"t know". 3. Why must your answer be a "god"/ "creator"? Here"s what you are saying "I don"t have an answer for something so POOF a god did it. But wait! Its specifically the god of the bible that did it. " WRONG! You say, When you do not know something "I don"t know". You don"t say "therefore god. " Science does not work that way. But it is how the bible works. And to top things off, Your bible cannot be questioned. But you so-called christians (don"t worry, There"s no such a thing as a christian), You do what you want, How you want, To what suits you best regardless of your set---in---stone god"s laws.

"Assume that we have no answer. Then the answer is "I don"t know". The answer isn"t "I can"t think of anything better, Therefore a god did it. " Matt Dillahunty

Your 3rd point. Science is needed in the debate, It's a determining factor. | Science.
No its not. If you cannot deal with it, That"s not my problem, That"s entirely yours. There was absolutely no science in the bible to prove its god, None whatsoever. The bible is the only thing/ outlet/ source in which you have to prove your god. But then again, No god would be stupid enough, Not ever, Not for any reason, To use text, Namely your bible as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible. In other words if your god was somehow proven to be true"

Matt Dillahunty "When is it time to believe that there is a god? As soon as there"s evidence. Not just because "oh the bible could be false and maybe there"s a god", The time to believe in a god is the time when there"s sufficient evidence to warrant belief. And so the bible could be false. The Quran could be false. You run through all of them and you"re left with OK what"s left? "

Well yah got one more strike left in which I could have very easily given. I didn't. The rules are simple enough. So follow them - IF you wish to have a debate! Its not hard.


Put a sock in it
Debate Round No. 2


Awe the poor wittle wist fwuffy foo foo is a completely lost brain salad incision rectal itch man with no outs and nowhere left to go. Boo hoo hoo. Cry for the fire (great song by The Residents) with all of your smoking gun lung power for all I care. Now name who stated "Who's more the fool? The fool? Or the fool who follows him? "


https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=46Ogp8b6plg
Debate Round No. 3


backwardseden forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
100 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 3 years ago
100th comment!
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
"I wanted to see if he/she remained consistent. "

Consistent with what? What did 678samsung state about "Cthulhu" or "Unicorns" that suggested he/she could be inconsistent? 678samsung didn't mention a thing about either. So you either selected "Cthulhu" and "Unicorns" at random, Which makes the question immensely uninformed and useless, Or there's a quality you believe both share which you are trying to relate to God. (I suspect the latter. )

"It was a question. It wasn't a loaded question either nor was it something that 678samsung did not provide as information for me to give that question. "

So it was random? I suppose I was incorrect: I should have suspected the former.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
@678samsung - All I did was read your first sentence. That was enough teeny bopper to know that you haven't the foggiest clue. "Religion requires a leap of faith, But so do science. Science requires a leap of faith, " guess repeating this is necessary since you as a supposed christian can group yourself with them and can't READ. What is the problem with you and your kind?
"Why would you believe anything on faith? Faith isn"t a pathway to truth. Every religion has some sort of faith. If faith is your pathway you can"t distinguish between christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Any of these others. How is it that you use ---reason--- in every of the other endeavor in your life and then when it comes to the ultimate truth, The most important truth your"re saying that faith is required and how is that supposed to reflect on a god? What kind of a god requires faith instead of evidence? " Matt Dillahunty

"Faith is the reason people give when they don"t have evidence. " Matt Dillahunty

"Faith can be very very dangerous, And deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong. " Richard Dawkins

"Faith is the great cop-out, The great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, Even perhaps because of, The lack of evidence. " Richard Dawkins

Now here's the clincher that you don't get teeny bopper. . .
"Assume that we have no answer. Then the answer is "I don"t know". The answer isn"t "I can"t think of anything better, Therefore a god did it. ""Matt Dillahunty
Posted by Kvng_8 3 years ago
Now you wanna talk about people's families. How mad can you be? Poor guy. What you said didn't even make sense. "If your family was pro abortion" as if you know anything about my family lol gtfo.
Posted by Kvng_8 3 years ago
You are just a pathetic little boy behind a keyboard I don't have time for you I'm doing important things with my time unlike you. Bye
Posted by Kvng_8 3 years ago
No this is just so funny so I'm not gonna waste my time over it.

"If you family was pro abortion. Your mother would have aborted you. Scumbag. "
Lmao look who grew some balls. You must be mad. At least be good at roasting. Not even gonna get on your level, Don't wanna hurt your feelings. :) Someone's a hypocrite. Mr. "I never resort to insults" and "If someone has bad conduct, Don't do it back" b. S. I already gave you your L plenty of times. Not worth it, You don't phase me. Give it up
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago

If you family was pro abortion. Your mother would have aborted you. Scumbag.

"Too lazy to do that. This got boring so im not giving you anymore energy. Deuces"
Can't give his side because it is identical to mine. Instea Kvng_8 is going to f off back to the hole he came from.
Posted by Kvng_8 3 years ago
Too lazy to do that. This got boring so im not giving you anymore energy. Deuces
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago

Why not show me your evidence?
Print screen from your side what I faked.
Go on scumbag.
Posted by Kvng_8 3 years ago
I can zoom in but no need to, It's fake. Salty
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Calling someone a "rectal itch" is poor conduct.
Vote Placed by timmyjames 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: Conduct is obvious. Spelling and grammar is obvious. Arguments also go to con because pro forfeited. Con used one source while pro used none

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