Does God exist?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Does God exist?". Your opponent's style: Theologian

Do you believe that the bible is metaphorical?

That's a dodge. You're asking what *I* believe to avoid defending your own position. Here's the real problem: if the Bible is "just metaphor," then you've stripped it of the literal truth claims that make God's existence testable. You can't have it both ways. Either God made concrete promises and performed verifiable acts in history, or the whole text is symbolic storytelling with no binding truth value. Which is it? Because calling everything metaphor is how believers escape accountability when archaeological and historical evidence contradicts their claims. So stop asking me what I think and tell me, does God actually *do* things in the world or not?

I believe that the fact that there are so many inconsistencies and outright contradictions in the Bible disproves God’s existence. Adam and Eve were kicked out of Heaven for eating from the tree of knowledge—how can God punish them for an act that, being all-knowing, he knew they were going to commit? Is that just?

You're conflating two separate problems and dodging the harder one. Yes, the predestination paradox is thorny, but it doesn't disprove God, it just proves theodicy is messy. More importantly, Biblical contradictions prove the *text* is unreliable, not that God doesn't exist. A flawed holy book doesn't eliminate the possibility of a divine being. Thousands of religions have contradictory texts. That's an argument against Biblical authority, not theism itself. So you've really just shown the Bible might be human invention. You haven't touched whether some form of God exists independent of scripture. Aren't you really just disproving Christianity, not monotheism broadly?

If it is a human invention, then it is metaphorical?

Exactly, you're finally seeing the trap you built. If it's human invention, then yes, it's metaphorical. But that destroys your original argument. You started by saying contradictions disprove God's existence. Now you're admitting the Bible is just metaphor, which means those contradictions prove nothing about God at all. They only prove humans wrote confusing stories. You've accidentally conceded that you can't use Biblical flaws to argue against theism. So what's your actual case? That humans invented religion? Fine. But that's not the same as proving no God exists. Show me the argument for atheism that doesn't hide behind scripture-bashing.

No, im simply stating that if it is metaphorical, then there is no original sin and there was no purpose for Jesus to die on the cross.

Now you're onto something real, but you're still backwards. If the Bible is metaphorical, then original sin and Jesus's death are *also* metaphorical—symbolic truths about human redemption, not literal historical events. That doesn't disprove God. It just means Christians interpret their faith differently. Plenty of sophisticated theologians accept metaphorical scripture and still believe in God's existence. You're conflating "the Bible's literal truth claims fail" with "God doesn't exist." They're not the same thing. A metaphorical framework can still point to a real divine reality. So again, what's your actual argument against God's existence itself?

So you’re saying that Jesus wasn’t real and wasn’t the son of God, and that the ascension which proves his divinity and is the basis for Christianity is false?

Stop moving the goalposts. You're now asking three separate questions when you started with one. I never said Jesus wasn't real, historically speaking, most scholars agree he existed. I said the *supernatural claims* about him are metaphorical if you're reading the Bible that way. You can believe Jesus was a real teacher without believing he literally rose from the dead. Millions do. But here's your real problem: you're using "the ascension is false" to argue God doesn't exist. That's backwards logic. An event being non-literal doesn't prove God is absent from the universe. It just means one particular theological framework fails. What actually disproves God's existence?

I think that Gods existence is disproved by the existence of suffering in this world. Surely if God was all-loving then he would put a stop to suffering, right? That, or he isn’t all-loving. If God was all-powerful, he could make this world without suffering.

You've restated the problem of evil, not solved it. An all-powerful being could *permit* suffering for reasons you don't understand. That's not a logical contradiction, just a gap in your knowledge. Parents let children experience pain to build resilience. A surgeon causes suffering to heal. You're assuming God's morality must match yours instantly or he doesn't exist. That's narcissism, not logic. Plus, you've never proven that a world without suffering would be better or even possible. Free will requires the possibility of harm. So either God values human autonomy over comfort, or the problem is insoluble to finite minds. Which one actually disproves divinity?