Instigator / Pro
2
1584
rating
29
debates
70.69%
won
Topic
#5893
Christian god cannot be real
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
0
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
baggins
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- 1,450
Contender / Con
7
1552
rating
10
debates
90.0%
won
Description
Christian god as described in the Bible cannot exist.
By accepting this debate you also accept that the Bible is either the complete word of god or the Bible is completely made by mankind. There’s not saying that some scriptures are real and others are not. No picking and choosing.
Primary burden of proof rests with Pro. Pro must prove that he is impossible and Con must prove that he is at least somewhat possible.
Round 1
Pro
#1
(This opening argument is mostly the same as the last time I did this debate, just FYI)
Thank you Con for accepting this debate
God is Perfect
My main argument is pretty simple.
Premise 1: Christian God is either perfect, or he does not exist
Premise 2: Beings that Contradict themselves are imperfect
Premise 3: Christian God contradicts himself
Premise 4: Christian God is imperfect
Conclusion: Christian God cannot be real
To summarize, if Christian God is real, then he is perfect and the Bible is his word. Since the Bible describes him as perfect, then if there was a being similar to christian god but he was imperfect, he would not be christian god then. Premise 1 is going to be pretty hard to dispute because of that.
Frankly, it would be pretty hard to dispute premise 2 IMO so I'm not going to try and back it up, but if you want to attack that part of my argument I will provide supporting premises.
Premise 4 relies on premise 3, so most of my argument will be dedicated to supporting the third premise.
Here are some basic contradictions:
Genesis 1:11-13: "And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the third day"Genesis 2:5-2:7: "...the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."
Matthew 27:5: "And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he (Judas) departed, and he went and hanged himself."Acts 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out."
Ecclesiastes 1:4 “… the earth abideth for ever.”Peter 3:10 “… the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.”
Those are only a few of the many contradictions. If more are required, I can provide them but these should suffice for our purposes. The fact that God contradicts himself should be enough, but the Bible even goes on to dispute modern science.
The bible gives its own account of the creation of animals that is in direct contradiction to the modern science of evolution.
Evolution can be observed in labs with viruses, and the fossil record also supports this.
but apart from the theory of evolution, the Bible contradicts even more science that is even more impossible to refute.
The Bible doesn't make any mention of planets, or other celestial bodies besides the sun, moon and stars. Why would it only mention god's creation of the earth and not the rest of the universe?
The bible says that the earth is stationary:
"The Lord established the earth on its foundations so it will never move." Psalm 104:5
The bible implies that the earth is about 6,000 to 10,000 years old, when studies show that it is most likely much more than that.
You won't be able to access this, but it's a study done on an asteroid created roughly the same time as the earth. They used carbon dating to estimate that it's about 4.5 billion years old. There is a margin of error, but not nearly enough to mean they were off by 4.4 billion years.
And biggest of all, it strongly implies a flat earth, which is just not true.
Matthew 4:8: "Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor"
To explain that last one, it would be impossible to see everywhere on the earth when on a spherical earth, and even if "God" didn't mean everywhere by "all kingdoms" then it would still be extremely hard to see that far on a spherical earth.
Conclusion
The Bible contradicts many proven facts of modern science, and even contradicts itself. If the Bible is truly the word of God, and God is a perfect being, then his word would not have contradictions. You can dispute premises 1 and 2 if you want, but I'm going to assume you won't. Seeing as I have effectively proved premises 3 and 4, my conclusion stands that Christian God cannot be real.
Thank you for accepting Con, I yield the floor.
Con
#2
Hi Moozer325
It seems you're underestimating the immense burden of proof you're taking on. When you use the word "impossible," you are asserting ultimate knowledge of the nature of reality and existence itself. There’s a reason why no one—whether they’re a scientist, philosopher, or theologian—has ever been able to conclusively prove or disprove the existence of any God. Any amount of contradictions in the Bible cannot disqualify the mere possibility (no matter how unlikely) that the Christian God exist. Here's where the problems are:
1. If God exists, we cannot possibly understand His reasons, logic, or plans.
2. Even if the Bible is the word of God, it’s widely accepted that it was written, translated, and edited by human hands over time.
3. Even if the Bible is entirely man-made, that doesn’t prove that God wasn’t behind it.
4. How can anyone claim to know what a perfect God is or what such a God would or wouldn’t do?
1. God’s Plan:
PRO, can you demonstrate with absolute certainty that God did not want the Bible to be exactly as it is now? Can you prove that things aren’t exactly as God intended them to be? Are you asserting that human minds are on the same level as the mind of the ultimate Creator of the Universe? Can you claim with certainty that you know what’s in this deity’s mind or why He does what He does? Furthermore, can you prove that God’s “contradictions” were not intentional, with some higher purpose that we cannot possibly understand? If God's contradictions were on purpose for reasons we can’t fathom, does that still constitute a mistake?
2. Human Intervention:
This one is fairly self-explanatory. It’s entirely possible that God gave His word and then humans corrupted it over time. While I find the arguments against Free Will convincing, there’s still the possibility that God intentionally allows humans the ability to make mistakes. Can you definitively disprove this with absolute certainty? There's still the fact that we do not understand the full nature of reality and consciousness and if God is indeed real he could want us to be able to make mistakes using our Free Will. Any chance of disproving with absolute certainty any of this? I ask this sarcastically because, frankly, it’s highly unlikely that you are the first and only person in the history of mankind that can do that.
3. The Possibility of Divine Influence:
Let’s assume for a moment that a group of people invented a religion and created fantastical stories. Can you prove with absolute certainty that the Christian God wasn’t somehow involved in this process? Could it not be the case that God orchestrated these events, guiding people in ways that might appear completely human, even though He had a role in inspiring the stories? Perhaps God decided that revealing Himself in this indirect manner would be more impactful, or that He didn’t want to overwhelm humanity with direct divine revelation. Could He have chosen to allow the creation of a seemingly false narrative that would gradually lead people to the truth? Maybe he decided it is better for some reason for people to come to him through this controversial story? Do you have access to some other deity that you can ask or compare and see if this is what gods don't do?
4. The Nature of Perfection:
An apparent contradiction in an ancient text does not automatically imply a divine mistake. How can you claim that any of this is ultimately a failure? Additionally, can you even define what a “perfect” God is? I assume you would describe God as one who makes no mistakes. But if you’re not familiar with God’s ultimate purpose or end goals, how can you assert that apparent contradictions are failures? Also many theologians would disagree that these contradictions even exist in the first place. So there goes your certainty in that too.
Conclusion:
In the end, there's a reason that wise people refrain from asserting ultimate knowledge about anything. Even in science, when something is proven to be correct with the highest degree of certainty, it's still not considered an “ultimate fact of existence” because we acknowledge that we might be wrong. You cannot prove something is impossible with absolute certainty. The closest we can get to absolute certainty are things like mathematical axioms, such as 1+1=2. But to say that a supernatural deity is impossible simply because some elements in a book don’t make sense doesn’t get you anywhere.
That’s why I don’t even need to address all the contradictions you’ve brought up. They simply don’t matter. Even if you are correct in your interpretations, all that proves is that the existence of this God is unlikely—not impossible. None of us know what a perfect God looks like or what He would do. None of us understand the ultimate nature of reality. Therefore, arguing that the Christian God is impossible based on contradictions in an ancient text misses the larger picture.
If you want to continue debating this, perhaps the title should be changed to "The Christian God is Very Unlikely to Exist," where I could concede some ground. But at the end of the day, none of us can prove the impossibility of the Christian God with absolute certainty.
I look forward to PRO's concession in the next round unless he wants to try his hardest to do what we all know no human has ever done yet and prove with absolute certainty he knows what's metaphysically possible and what is not. If he does that he might be God himself.
Thanks!
Round 2
Pro
#3
It seems you're underestimating the immense burden of proof you're taking on. When you use the word "impossible," you are asserting ultimate knowledge of the nature of reality and existence itself. There’s a reason why no one—whether they’re a scientist, philosopher, or theologian—has ever been able to conclusively prove or disprove the existence of any God. Any amount of contradictions in the Bible cannot disqualify the mere possibility (no matter how unlikely) that the Christian God exist.
I don't need to know everything about everything, I just need to know absolute fundamental truths about logic. Obviously, there are a great many things that are impossible to actually "prove", but I believe this is one of them. I know the scale of the burden of proof I'm taking on, but I'm prepared to meet that challenge.
To list an example, you wouldn't need fundamental knowledge of everything to prove that a 4-sided triangle cannot exist. It's just a logical contradiction, it cannot be real. This kind of fundamental logic of the universe can be transferred to christian God as well. To be clear, I'm not debating against God himself because it's impossible to disprove any kind of God. I'm only arguing against God as described in the Bible.
PRO, can you demonstrate with absolute certainty that God did not want the Bible to be exactly as it is now? Can you prove that things aren’t exactly as God intended them to be? Are you asserting that human minds are on the same level as the mind of the ultimate Creator of the Universe? Can you claim with certainty that you know what’s in this deity’s mind or why He does what He does? Furthermore, can you prove that God’s “contradictions” were not intentional, with some higher purpose that we cannot possibly understand? If God's contradictions were on purpose for reasons we can’t fathom, does that still constitute a mistake?
This is probably the best kind of counter argument I've heard for my resolution, but I still believe it falls short. The key thing you have to remember is that not only is the bible the word of christian god, but christian god is described through the bible, as provided in the description. For example, let's take the contradiction in Genesis about the order of creation.
Think about it in terms of a contradiction pertaining to God himself, not to the word of God. Since God is perfect, you are correct that he could utter a contradiction but it still remains that he cannot have a contradiction in his very nature. God cannot possibly have created humans and plants before the other, it's just as impossible as a three sided triangle. However the Bible describes him as doing both. There are two possibilities, either humans were created first or plants were, and remember that the description of this debate provides that the Bible must be taken as a whole. Now since Christian God is the God described in the Bible, he must have all the qualities the Bible gives him. If this God had even one thing about him different from what the Bible says, then he wouldn't truly be Christian God.
You can probably see where this is going now. Christian God cannot possibly have all the qualities in the bible, because he would have to have created both plants and humans first, which is a logical impossibility. It's not the contradictions in the Bible that are important, it's the contradictions in Christian God himself. Remember, the Bible could be 99.99% right about the nature of God, but unless it's completely right then the God described God is not Christian God.
This one is fairly self-explanatory. It’s entirely possible that God gave His word and then humans corrupted it over time. While I find the arguments against Free Will convincing, there’s still the possibility that God intentionally allows humans the ability to make mistakes. Can you definitively disprove this with absolute certainty? There's still the fact that we do not understand the full nature of reality and consciousness and if God is indeed real he could want us to be able to make mistakes using our Free Will. Any chance of disproving with absolute certainty any of this? I ask this sarcastically because, frankly, it’s highly unlikely that you are the first and only person in the history of mankind that can do that.
This is my bad, and I should have clarified this in the description, but the specific version of the Bible that I'm using for this debate is the modern King James Bible. I get that it may not be the original word of God, however the God described in it is the one that most Christians recognize and pray to. The Christian God that I'm arguing against is specifically the one described in our modern version of the Bible. It is entirely possible that a God wrote his word and humans misunderstood it and mistranslated it, but either way, that God wouldn't be "Christian God" as people worship him today, so it's not the God I'm arguing against. Sorry again for not clarifying, thanks for understanding.
Let’s assume for a moment that a group of people invented a religion and created fantastical stories. Can you prove with absolute certainty that the Christian God wasn’t somehow involved in this process? Could it not be the case that God orchestrated these events, guiding people in ways that might appear completely human, even though He had a role in inspiring the stories? Perhaps God decided that revealing Himself in this indirect manner would be more impactful, or that He didn’t want to overwhelm humanity with direct divine revelation. Could He have chosen to allow the creation of a seemingly false narrative that would gradually lead people to the truth? Maybe he decided it is better for some reason for people to come to him through this controversial story? Do you have access to some other deity that you can ask or compare and see if this is what gods don't do?
Okay, so to the best of my understanding your argument is that God could have created the Bible and the idea of Christian God to purposely lead humanity away from the truth for whatever divine reason he might have wanted. I have a pretty simple rebuttal for that. The hypothetical God you thought of wouldn't be Christian God. Remember, I'm not arguing for the impossibility of any God, just Christian God. I think I might have misunderstood your argument though, so if you want to clarify that would be great.
An apparent contradiction in an ancient text does not automatically imply a divine mistake. How can you claim that any of this is ultimately a failure? Additionally, can you even define what a “perfect” God is? I assume you would describe God as one who makes no mistakes. But if you’re not familiar with God’s ultimate purpose or end goals, how can you assert that apparent contradictions are failures? Also many theologians would disagree that these contradictions even exist in the first place. So there goes your certainty in that too.
(This is going to be a dumb thought experiment, but hear me out for a second). Let's say I wrote this book about a deity named Bob. Part of the book is about how Bob can draw round squares, which is obviously impossible. Since an essential part of Bob is his power to create round squares, then if I were to remove that part from the book, then it wouldn't be Bob anymore.
The problem with biblical contradictions isn't that God made a mistake because an imperfect being such as me could never understand the full plan of God. My point is that the contradiction isn't just with the Bible, it's with Christian God himself, and a being that does a logical impossibility is impossible by association.
In the end, there's a reason that wise people refrain from asserting ultimate knowledge about anything. Even in science, when something is proven to be correct with the highest degree of certainty, it's still not considered an “ultimate fact of existence” because we acknowledge that we might be wrong. You cannot prove something is impossible with absolute certainty. The closest we can get to absolute certainty are things like mathematical axioms, such as 1+1=2. But to say that a supernatural deity is impossible simply because some elements in a book don’t make sense doesn’t get you anywhere.
Mathematical axioms like the one you provided can be expanded out to logic and philosophy too. I've kinda already made this point so I won't go on long, but like I said before, there are certain logical impossibilities, such as creating two things first.
That’s why I don’t even need to address all the contradictions you’ve brought up. They simply don’t matter. Even if you are correct in your interpretations, all that proves is that the existence of this God is unlikely—not impossible.
I agree with the fact that you don't need to disprove my contradictions. I limited myself to just a few contradictions because I didn't really expect you to dispute the fact that they were contradictions. My last opponent in this debate did try to go that route, so I put a few just in case, but as long as you agree that they are contradictions then we're fine.
I look forward to PRO's concession in the next round unless he wants to try his hardest to do what we all know no human has ever done yet and prove with absolute certainty he knows what's metaphysically possible and what is not. If he does that he might be God himself.
Well as you mentioned before, we can know some things to be true because logically they must. I know Christian God cannot be real just as I know a four sided triangle, or a father without a son, or a married bachelor is impossible.
I like to save conclusions for the last round, so that's it for now. Thanks for participating, I yield the floor.
Con
#4
Hi Moozer,
Logical axioms are not unquestionable. I wont question them too much here but there are generally:
solipsists, epistemologists, logical positivists, some scientists that question the completeness or appropriateness of certain logical systems in modeling the real world, particularly in quantum mechanics or other advanced fields where traditional logic may not hold. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems have shown also that within any sufficiently powerful formal system, there will be true statements that are unprovable within the system, which can prompt mathematicians to question the completeness or consistency of logical axioms. Obviously some religious thinkers too may see logic as either a divine gift or a human limitation, questioning its scope when applied to ultimate or metaphysical truths.
And so forth…
But for the sake of your argument I grant you logical axioms like A→A (anything implies itself) or either A is true or A is false etc.
We have the same problem. Even with having these logical axioms we still know absolutely nothing about the ultimate nature of reality and God. And this is what we are dealing with here. We are not arguing about knowing everything about everything. We are talking about God only. Which might be just one thing but it is the biggest question to maybe ever exist. And the Christian God as we all know has interesting properties to say. All powerful is pretty important one. You might’ve skipped that when you started critiquing parts of the Bible… as you say “no pick and choosing”.
Because when we talk about “A” here we are defining “A” as something that goes beyond logic and reasoning. The Christian God described in the Bible is also a god beyond those things. He is not a triangle with sides nor a logical axiom which is just something that is assumed to be true because it’s self evident within a logical system. God is a metaphysical concept—a being or a force that transcends logical systems and is the assumed ultimate Creator of EVERYTHING. Whatever version of the Bible you want to use He is still ultimately and most importantly A GOD. And God can be whatever he wants including logically incomprehensible or contradicting. That just follows from his description as all mighty, all powerful etc. And we as humans do not have any absolute certainty on this matter so far. There are good arguments against him, sure. But again, there’s no way to check. That’s why we cant use the word “impossible”. To know “some” “basic fundamentals truths about logic” wont get you where you need to go here. You need much more than the basics PRO.
-“it's impossible to disprove any kind of God”
Well you said it… in other words it’s impossible to say it’s impossible. The God of the Bible is a Kind of God and you just admitted you cant prove or disprove any. Any kind of description including a self contradictory God from the Bible is still a some kind of a God.
Can you prove again that the Christian God cannot be a God that wants to reveal himself through a book with logical contradictions or it’s impossible for Him to do logically contradicting things? Can you prove God is bound by human or any kind of logic? Where in the Bible it says that the Christian God revealed everything there is to know about him? Can He not keep some details about himself? God in the Bible was also described above all things (logic, reason etc). Sorry but the Christians bulletproofed themselves by saying in advance even if something doesn’t make sense to us thats how God wanted it to be. Sure they cant prove it but you cant disprove it either.
Again, how God is described in the Bible doesn’t matter. Because if the Christian God from the Bible is real it is possible for him to withhold information about himself even if he gives us some information to write a book with and the information He can without for example could be “I can make logically impossible things happen”. It is already implied by all of his said properties or the least you cant disprove its a possibility. It is possible for him to be exactly like the Bible says he is and for that to make no sense to us but He still to be real. Because logic is processed in our brains which are not perfect so we cannot ultimately verify many things and this is one of them. -What God can or cannot be. Doesn’t matter which one. Christian or not, any Bible version, we cant be sure what God is capable of. So again Im asking , can you prove the Christian God cant do something that is logically impossible?
Everything of what I am saying can be done by the Christian God as described in the Bible. I doubt there are many Christians that can say God is incapable of anything let alone this. We don't know his end goals we cant know if tricking us or giving us this contradicting information is a bad or a good thing. Do you know if this Christian God doesn’t just want to be known this way? As contradicting to us. Thats in his capabilities based on the Bible! To be mysterious and unknown and beyond logic. Thats what I mean by bulletproof, he is beyond our tools for reasoning so we cant use them to definitively disprove him.
So I think you are saying that the Christian God cannot have done the things that the Bible said he did because what we know about reality and logic points in the other direction so therefore the Christian God cannot exist as the Bible describes him. Here’s where you assume that we have the ultimate truth since you leave no room for other possibilities. Just like I said before, we can only have very good assumptions about somethings but never declare absolute certainty about anything let alone metaphysical concepts. What our logical axioms say about metaphysics has little effect. Because our logical axioms might not be ultimate and if there’s something beyond them (as the Christian God) they could be useless and that might be something that humanity never finds out while alive.
All I am saying is that you cant prove that the Christian God is not capable of doing logically impossible things. You cant prove he is still not the same God. You cant prove that he just didn’t wanted it this way. You think the Christian God cannot be real because he is described in the Bible as such and such. You cant prove by logical contradiction and scientific evidence something presumably supernatural. Logic and science are pretty natural.
Christian God as described in the Bible is ultimately beyond us and what we can ever know or think of so He and all his contradictions included are also beyond us.
This is what you might not realize that you argue here. The Christian God (if real) can be whatever He wants, create dumb books and still exist. Its just not possible to debunk this by any means. You said no pick and choosing? So why are you choosing to pick things in the Bible that make no sense in order to disprove the same God that they also say is literally beyond our minds so we cant possibly begin to understand anything about him and why he says the stuff that he says and what do they ultimately mean. Your argument is that the Bible mentions their God doing logically impossible stuff so to you it means he cannot exist. But the Bible also mentions God can do logically impossible stuff, so… you know, again, bulletproof. Its only you that assumes logical contradictions is something God cant do and if he is perfect like you say he can. Because he can do all.
For a being that is described as capable of doing logical impossibilities, it wont be logically impossible to do a logical impossibility. Thats the properties of this God that you ignore. You said no pick and choosing. So don’t only pick the things in the Bible that don't make sense. Pick the things that say God can do absolutely everything and we cant simply assume with no proof that “logical impossibilities” are not one of those things that He can do. At least we cant definitively say it’s “impossible”. And yes, it would still be the same Christian God.
Christian God is not obliged to conform to human-defined logical constraints.
And even if omnipotence doesn’t require the ability to perform logically impossible actions, Christian God itself is still described (again) to be beyond human logic, which allows for the possibility of actions beyond our understanding. There we have it again - the possibility! God may exist beyond human understanding, rather than being logically incoherent.
Matthew 19:26:
"Jesus looked at them and said, 'With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.'" (NIV)
Round 3
Pro
#5
-“it's impossible to disprove any kind of God”Well you said it… in other words it’s impossible to say it’s impossible. The God of the Bible is a Kind of God and you just admitted you cant prove or disprove any. Any kind of description including a self contradictory God from the Bible is still a some kind of a God.
Yeah, that one is my bad. I didn't actually mean that, and I said it completely wrong. What I meant to say is that you can't 100% disprove God (as you stated) unless that God contradicts fundamental laws of our universe eI. Logic. God can exist outside of the laws of physics, time, space, but not Logic. God can make things travel faster than light, or defy gravity, but he can't turn A into B. Just as you said A is A not B, despite any divine intervention.
Omnipotent doesn't mean God can do everything, just everything within reason.
And the Christian God as we all know has interesting properties to say. All powerful is pretty important one. You might’ve skipped that when you started critiquing parts of the Bible… as you say “no pick and choosing”.
All-power doesn't really mean "All-powerful". To explain what I mean, I'll use the thought experiment of the immovable rock. You've probably heard this one, but essentially asks if God could create a rock so heavy he himself could lift it? The point it's trying to make is the omnipotence is impossible, but I get something else from it. I don't like this argument for atheism, because it misunderstands what "All powerful" really means. "All-Powerful" just means that God can do anything within the bounds of Logic. He couldn't create the rock because it's a logical impossibility, but that doesn't take away from his power.
Sorry if that was a weird tangent, but you get the main point. God is still confined by the bounds of Logic, meaning if he has a logical contradiction in his nature, he took cannot exist.
Can you prove again that the Christian God cannot be a God that wants to reveal himself through a book with logical contradictions or it’s impossible for Him to do logically contradicting things?
I can't prove the first few, but I never tried to. I only have to prove that Christian God himself has contradictions in his very nature. Just as a four sided triangle can't be real, Christian God can't because they both have contradictions in their very nature.
Can you prove God is bound by human or any kind of logic? Where in the Bible it says that the Christian God revealed everything there is to know about him? Can He not keep some details about himself? God in the Bible was also described above all things (logic, reason etc). Sorry but the Christians bulletproofed themselves by saying in advance even if something doesn’t make sense to us thats how God wanted it to be. Sure they cant prove it but you cant disprove it either.
Like I said before, it doesn't matter if God is described as being "above logic" that's just not possible. If he is above logic in the bible, then that's just another contradiction for you. Logic is the one law of the universe that is total, complete and unavoidable.
Again, how God is described in the Bible doesn’t matter. Because if the Christian God from the Bible is real it is possible for him to withhold information about himself even if he gives us some information to write a book with and the information He can without for example could be “I can make logically impossible things happen”. It is already implied by all of his said properties or the least you cant disprove its a possibility
I've already said how it's impossible for him to make logical contradictions anyways, but beyond that, remember that if the true God has things about him not described in the bible, then he's just not Christian God. Sorry again for failing to clarify in the description, but since God as described in the King James Bible is the one most Christian worship and spend time on, I think it's fair for that to be the one I'm arguing against.
So again Im asking , can you prove the Christian God cant do something that is logically impossible?
Yeah I can, and you kinda said it yourself. You granted me that A is A, which is a logical axiom nothing can dispute. God as described in the bible essentially makes A -> B by creating both plants and humans first. Therefore, just as A /= B, Christian God cannot be real.
So I think you are saying that the Christian God cannot have done the things that the Bible said he did because what we know about reality and logic points in the other direction so therefore the Christian God cannot exist as the Bible describes him.
Exactly. While our brains are not perfect and can't know the full reality of the universe, they can at least understand simple logic. A dog can understand that his favorite toy can't be both red and blue, but is he wrong just because he has less brain power?
Okay, so I get that your argument keeps going on from this point, but it's kinda just saying the same stuff and I don't want to repeat myself more than I have to, so I'm just gonna leave it here and move on to the conclusion. My main argument is summarized in the rebuttal just above this one, and that's all there is to say really.
Conclusion
Getting it out of the way quickly, I don't believe that conduct, legibility and sources should be awarded in this debate for obvious reasons. However I think I deserve the arguments. I provided a well written syllogism to open and my opponent hasn't addressed that directly, just my argument as a whole. I also believe I did well on the rebuttals and refuted my opponents main point.
Thanks for participating Con, I hope to see you again sometime on this site.
Con
#6
Thanks for the debate Moozer!
My main point - If I can put it in one sentence it would be:
We can't definitely be sure that God is not above human logic.
That's one of the main reasons why we leave room for all kinds of possibilities.
Alongside that we are fallible beings that could be wrong about anything.
If I needed a syllogism it would've looked like this:
Keep in mind PRO argues that the God described in the Bible cannot exist. We are not arguing if he does or does not exist.
P1: God in the Bible is described as capable of doing the impossible
("Matthew 19:26:
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. (KJV) ")
Was not debunked*
The verse in KJV Bible says the same thing as NIV
The verse in KJV Bible says the same thing as NIV
PRO objected that "all things are possible" doesn't include things beyond logic with no source or evidence
P2: Logical contradictions are something impossible defined by PRO
(That was granted to show I acknowledge logical axioms and that they are things that are impossible for humans. Like paradoxes. Now we have the concept of "impossible". And something that God can do and humans can't.
C1: Since the Bible defines God as a deity that can do the impossible
and
logical contradictions are something me and PRO defined as impossible,
it follows that God can do the logically impossible.
This is what I have been concluding from round 1.
C2: It also follows that if God is capable of the impossible, what PRO considers as logically impossible in the Bible does not apply to God and therefore does not make him self-contradicting (so still perfect).
To extend:
Yes, I granted PRO axioms. Yes, human logic is bound by them. But No, we can't be sure they apply the same way for the Christian God or any God since they can be beyond our concept of logic. God my not be bound the same way to them as humans.
I think I addressed PROs entire syllogism, here's a summary:
P1: Christian God is either perfect, or he does not exist
-Sure, but what is "perfect"? PRO didn't specify. I asked; is it something that makes no mistakes? Because then how would you know if God made a mistake if you don't know His ultimate goals? PRO didn't have a solid answer. I guess it could be something that doesn't contradict itself but that definition doesn't really make sense and is very vague.
P2: Beings that Contradict themselves are imperfect
-Is God who is capable of the impossible doing the impossible a self-contradiction? PRO didn't have a solid answer.
P3: Christian God contradicts himself
-Not definitely proven when you consider the possibility that God could be beyond our understanding and beyond what we consider logical contradiction since he by definition is above and beyond everything. I have not seen a verse that says there is something that can bound him. Sure, my logic also tells me some things are nonsensical. But can I guarantee it is impossible that there isn't something beyond my logic?
P4: Christian God is imperfect
-This just doesn't follow anymore.
Here's more possible problems:
PRO: "nobody can disprove ANY kind of God". Adding now "unless that God contradicts fundamental laws of our universe …" doesn't make it better because :
- Firstly, a god that contradicts fundamental laws of our universe is still a kind of God as mentioned already.
- Secondly, you continued that sentence with "God can exist outside of the laws of physics, time, space, but not Logic" why is PRO leaving a special room only for Logic? And how does that work if God is beyond Time already this is a logical contradiction that PRO allows. God cant be 'here' before time because there is no "before" if we don't have the concept of time.
- Sure mentioning paradoxes could result with us saying "no, God cant do that, that's impossible because it doesn't make sense". But it doesn't make sense to a human mind. We don't know how a divine mind works.
"Just as you said A is A not B, despite any divine intervention."
- To say "despite any divine intervention" is the exact opposite of what I have been saying. Logical axioms could apply for us, not necessarily for God. If there is a divine intervention all logical laws could possibly disappear. Like God existing BEFORE time or creating something out of nothing.
"Omnipotent doesn't mean God can do everything, just everything within reason."
-I do not think we have agreed on such definition.. Omni-Potent by itself does not mention any limitations. Its the opposite, its: "One having unlimited power or authority". Nowhere it says "within reason".
When we say something is "omnipotent," especially in the context of a being or force, it typically refers to the ability to do absolutely anything, with no limits or restrictions. This could include things like creating paradoxes we might not understand or make sense to us because they go against human logic.
In other words, an omnipotent entity would not be limited by reason or even by the nature of logic itself. Yes, some people argue that omnipotence doesn't include the ability to do things that are inherently nonsensical, like creating a square circle. This is a topic of philosophical debate. Key words here are : debate (in present tense). Meaning: the topic is still being explored and debated on. Nothing has been asserted definitely, so again.. PRO cannot assert what's impossible.
PRO brings up logical axioms that on the other hand have nothing to do with the kind of impossibilities from the Bible. The "logical impossibilities" that PRO brings up from the Bible are the sort of "our evidence shows old Earth and Bible says young Earth, what about that?". This doesn't challenge any axioms. There's no logical contradiction here. There could be just things we are wrong about, or we think the Bible says something literally but its meant to be understood differently. That's about interpretation, logical axioms are not. There're possible explanations even if we assume there was nothing going on beyond laws of logic.
Like I said before, it doesn't matter if God is described as being "above logic" that's just not possible
-Have you done experiments with Gods or God-like beings before? How did you establish definitively that they cant do logically impossible things?
it doesn't matter if God is described as being "above logic"
-That's what the debate is about. Can this God described in the Bible be real? If something is capable of doing the impossible there's nothing stopping it from being real including logic.
Logic is the one law of the universe that is total, complete and unavoidable
-Proof that its more total than God? Which would be first : Logic or God? Do you personally know a creator of a universe or know how and why it was created to establish what is the total and complete law? Our logic might not work at all places. Maybe metaphysical places are one of them. If metaphysical places exist, of course. We don't know therefore we cant say its impossible.
remember that if the true God has things about him not described in the bible, then he's just not Christian God
-Wrong imo. Lets say again, that the Christian God is the real God. Can he withhold some things about himself from that book? How would that make him not real or not himself (not the Christian God)? If I write an autobiography and I don't mention certain details about myself but everything else I have said is true does that make the person in the book not me or not exist? PRO already admitted that he cant prove God didn't decide to withhold some info.
I'm sure a biography book about Abraham Lincoln might not contain every single detail about him but its still about the same Lincoln and he still existed.
You granted me that A is A, which is a logical axiom nothing can dispute
I granted you axioms I didn't granted that nothing can dispute them. So the last part of the sentence would be "...which is a logical axiom THAT GOD can dispute but not humans."
God is the ultimate source of all order and laws, including the laws of logic. So, if God is truly beyond logic, He could, in theory, create or destroy logic at will.
In other words, we can't even say what a contradiction "is" if God transcends logic. Just as we can’t use ordinary language to describe something completely outside human experience (like a new color), we can’t fully grasp how a being that transcends logic operates
"God … makes A -> B by creating both plants and humans first. Therefore, just as A /= B, Christian God cannot be real."
As I said in the first round. Many of your interpretations can be contested by some Christians theologians and scholars who would disagree that those are firm contradictions and there's no room for possibilities. They will obviously have different interpretation than yours. I also kept repeating that our understanding of what these verses mean might not be correct
For example one can view Genesis 1 as giving a cosmic overview of creation, while Genesis 2 provides a more focused account of the creation of man and the Garden of Eden. Many scholars and theologians have reconciled these differences by seeing them as complementary rather than contradictory narratives etc
" While our brains … can at least understand simple logic."
My point is, are we certain God is not beyond simple logic and how?
"A dog ?can? understand that his favorite toy can't be both red and blue, but is he wrong just because he has less brain power?"
-The main obstacle to the idea of a God (not a dog) having a toy that is both red and blue would lie in the logical and physical limitations of our universe. But if a God operates beyond these limitations, such a toy might very well be possible in that context
For PRO to be right, the Christian God had to be described as not the ultimate source of all laws in the universe which then could definitely make Him bound by human logic, but he isn't defined like that. He is defined as more or less limitless and beyond those laws which leaves room for almost everything.
Thanks for the debate again, PRO!
No content
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro begins argumentation ignoring definition of terms like “Christian god,” “perfect,” “exist,” or “contradict.” Theses are vital to understand Pro’s argument, since some uses are confusing. “Christian god,” is used in a few contexts, and capitalize, uncapped, both , and in quotes and not. Can’t tell when these contradictive references are used for what, or who or what they’re intended to be.. It spoils his argument. Further, “perfect” has multiple interpretations; all cannot apply without definition. Lacking definitions of these two words, mostly used in reference to a deity. They becomes a weak state to demonstrate by Pro’s BoP. I am left wondering if Christian god is a specific person, the Screaming Spaghetti Monster, or an amorphous wine bottle. Pro’s sourcing of contradictive Bible verses to demonstrate Christian god’s imperfection (therefore non-existence) is successfully rebutted by Con by Con’s demonstration that the Bible, though “the word of God” though not necessarily “Christian god” (doesn’t not explain the Yahweh of the O.T.) the Bible’s scribe is not God, nor “ Christian god.”
Con’s R1 argument that without understanding “God’s purposes or goals, how can you assert that apparent contradictions (in Bible verses) are failures.” This argument on nature of perfection is never successfully rebutted by Pro.
Con R1, R2, R3 are the superior arguments and rebuttals. Score 3-0 Con
Both Pro and Con provide sourcing, but some Pro sources like NBCI and Smithsonian take one into the weeds of creation, and do not support the Resolution. Further Pro sources revise age of Earth from biblical implications, but we’re not certain, yet (and never are) just who is Christian god to have created Earth and when. Doesn’t support the Resolution.
Con has fewer sources, but volume of such is not a justification of effectiveness. Con sources (biblical) such as citing Matthew 19:26 to underpin the clam that that “God may exist beyond man’s understanding rather than being logically incoherent” succeed to support the Con argument. Score: con 2
Legibility: tie 1-1
Conduct: tie 1-1