The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
2 Points

All of our "Gods" are humanitys artificial constructs

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: 1/20/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 4 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 325 times Debate No: 106926
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




All of the gods that certain groups of people believe in have no cosmological significance because they are all the byproduct of human mythology and dont really exist.


Regardless of title, the purpose of this debate is to argue for the existence of God. I am of the opinion that due to the fact that the world is so complex, and because of how complex we humans are, God must exist. Consider the fact that we humans have the ability to think,talk,smell, have emotions etc there must be a higher power. The atheistic theory that we humans were created because of a bang makes no sense. This is so because if humans were created completely out of nothing-with no higher power behind it- then how can we think,eat,talk etc?

I look forward to debating this issue
Debate Round No. 1


Humans along with most other living things can think because we have complex neural networks called brains that have been fine tuned via evolution over hundreds of millions of years for a species in that given environment, and talking is just a byproduct of having a brain complex enough, and having complex vocal cords "also a product of evolution" and humans are not the only animals in this boat, other animals have vocal cords, and all living things be it a simple bacterium or a whale eat for the simple need of acquiring energy.

And humans were not created from the big bang, they were created from a line of events that happend long after the big bang.

as for being supposedly created out of nothing, life didn't come from "nothing" the early earth was a for more organic rich environment were a wider ordeal of chemistry was able to occur, as for how cells came into existence i give you a link to how simple RNA protocells from the RNA world hypothesis can spontaneously gather into very simplistic cells capable of evolution and natural selection from nothing more then what would have been in the environment around it.

and just because something is complex doesn't mean by default it had a creator

and all of things you described like smell and emotion can be summed up as the result of having a complex brain "witch humans are not the only creatures to have"

my overall point is

1: Their is no evidence for a "higher power" or "creator"
2: Just because something is complex doesn't automatically mean it had to have had a creator
3: And just because the big bang and evolution/abiogenisis dont make sense to you, that itself is NOT evidence against it.


My opponent has said that human beings are complex organisms. I agree, but if humans were created from a series of events that happened long ago, then the statement that humans are complex gets weaken. Because if humans were created because of several events that happened long ago, what caused those events to make such complex organisms? God, of course. This is because you can"t get life out of non life. A complex organism must have a complex maker
Debate Round No. 2


"if humans were created because of several events that happened long ago, what caused those events to make such complex organisms?"

1: Its called Evolution
2: life CAN come from non life, now before you say something like why life doesn't generate from something like peanut butter, life wont generate from any non life thing, life is a product of organic chemistry and chemical evolution and does not require a "GOD" to generate its self into existence.
3: in evolution the protocells described here at some point around 3.6 billion years ago made a transition from RNA replication to DNA replication probably due to the change in chemistry described in this video this video explains how RNA could function as a genetic carrier in an IRON rich environment that lacked oxygen, also it explains how it could have kick started the first photosynthesis from simple electron transphers
also consider that RNA was not the only organic molecule that would have been able to store information, its almost certain their were probably dozens of other organic molecules similar to RNA among them including DNA that could do this, so it makes sense that the same process that RNA protocells used to make oxygen was also the same process that ultimately made it inert and unable to be a instruction carrier at witch point DNA a close chemical cousin to RNA would go about taking its place as a more effective instruction carrier.
and since DNA is able to hold instructions to create proteins such as pores that profligate a cells membrane it allowed for a whole new variety of genetic strands to arise and become more complex from random sequences.
This is how you would have made the jump from RNA Protocells to DNA Bacteria
After DNA based life came into the existence they too were also subjected to evolution and natural selection such as sequences that allowed for the creation of more beneficial proteins that allowed for faster DNA replication and defenses against natural elements, it was beloved some time after these simple DNA cells spreaded throughout the oceans that two of them ended up absorbing each other by random chance "accident" without killing each other and as a result this new cell that would later be known as "Eukaryotes" witch is a larger cell with a nucleolus entered the scene, this complex cell or one like it is believed to be the common ancestor of ALL MULTICULTURAL LIFE because of how easily it could have developed into simple celliur strands we call algae, under simple natural selection, diversity and evolution, your able to see how these simple multicelluier organisms could evolve into sponges, then jellyfish, to simple fish, complex fish, and eventually every single living thing we see today INCLUDING HUMANS without the need for GOD or intelligent intervention.
so no, a complex organism DOES NOT NEED A CREATOR. <- from simple cells to Eukaryotes

Now since ive been able to give LEGITIMATE evidence and reason to how the complexity of life can occur naturally from non complex molecules, including the genetic and evolutionary ancestry that ended up leading to humans and millions of other species
please provide your LEGITIMATE evidence for a creator instead of just repeating "complexity needs a creator, WITH NO EVIDENCE" because at this point i believe ive given reasonable evidence that this is not the case and that all of life arised under natural non intelligently guided circumstances.


i would like for my opponent to provide some evidence for there opening statement "All of the gods that certain groups of people believe in have no cosmological significance because they are all the byproduct of human mythology and dont really exist.

Please look at these links for scientific evidence for the Bible
The Bible contains scientific facts
Debate Round No. 3


First off the bible and science can and will never go hand and hand, and at the time period the bible was supposedly "WRITTEN AT" most people thought the earth was flat, also the bible describes events happening at certain time periods that have been scientifically proven NEVER TO HAPPEN, for example

The universe and the earth are not 6000 years old, their was no GREAT FLOOD, all of humanity is not descended from Noah whiten a time period of 4000 years.

Also the bible was WRITTEN BY MAN, and if you want to argue that supposedly god told them what to write, i could write a story on existence and claim a higher power told me what to right, and even though that would be a load of crap, its just as valid when it comes to the bible.

i also assume you believe in the christian god hence god/jesus
from what i understand gods will is absolute right? well please explain the fact that the original bible witch if you dont know HAS MANY DIFFERENCES THEN THE ORIGINAL BIBLE including that it mentions nothing about the resurrection of jesus chirst unlike the modern bible, in fact just any diffrence should be a red flag because the bible should be the word of god, why would you change the word of god if his word is true? and if you say one part of the bible is wrong, well your "god" says its all true with means, either your god is a liar, or the bible is wrong and its god isnt real.

Also why specifically pick Christianity? it is equally as valid as all the other religions based around these gods listed below

hence their are far more then those, but you can look that up for yourself

also you have yet to give me any exact examples of a creator, and even if you could witch you are yet to do, now you have to give me evidence on why it is YOUR GOD instead of the god OTHER people believe is the one true god :)


Please provide evidence that the Bible is scientifically inaccurate. Also, 99.5% of the New Testament is in tact
Debate Round No. 4


Alright, before i give the main evidence i just want to point out that 99.5% is not 100% so why was it changed if it truly was the word of GOD

As for actual evidence, the bible states that god created earth 6000 years ago, and since even the bible states man was litterly made from dirt -_- that mankind existence is exactly or less then 6000 years old right? well this couldn't be further from the truth

Site explaining evidence for evolution >

this is explains homo sapiens history along with evidence >

proof the ark couldn't have been built "especially with humanity's capability 4000 years ago" >



So their is some evidence for you, also consider that humans share a large amount of DNA with other primates witch is the result of genetic ancestor "Humans did NOT evolve from modern apes" and the genetic ancestor can be dated to go back at least a few million years witch is quite bit longer then 6000 years.

We also have found remains of earlier cousins to homo sapiens such as the recently departed neanderthals about 39,000 years ago in Europe and the even further dating back Homo-Erectus witch is probably the common ancestor for humans/neanderthals. so did they exist before the universe, and if so did god just deem them unworthy ? or is it some mystical hoax put by god to test our faith -_- >

Also i stated above that the bible litterly talks about man kind coming from dirt, before you say its the same boat evolution claiming life from non life, please take into HUGE CONSIDORATION that their is a big diffrence between "DIRT" and organic molecules such as "Fatty Acids, Nucleotides"
like i stated in my previous argument life can come from non-life, but it cant come from just any non-life thing.

also the statement i made in the begining
"All of the gods that certain groups of people believe in have no cosmological significance because they are all the byproduct of human mythology and dont really exist"

that is because all of the religions originated from human culture and mythology, along with that they all share the same quality's such as.

- their full of constrictions
- non of them have any legitimate evidence to back them up
- all literature and anything written about said religion had to have been done some by a human "aliens or crap is for another debate"
- events and practices that the religions proclaim have either been proved inaccurate or utterly barbaric.

once more my point is that i have been given no reason to believe that any of these supposed gods are real, and even if their really is a god "most likely not" do you really believe "the one true god" would be one of humanity's artificial constructs?


I think we are done
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 weeks ago
>Reported vote: FollowerofChrist1955// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments, Sources), 1 point to Con (S&G). Reasons for voting decision: 1. Con presents better argument and strategy as there are no available scientific evidence to disprove con's assertion regarding Biblical authenticity. Thus the realm of possibility remains as potentiality! 2. Pro failed to catch the misdirection by con, which caused Pro to lose control of debate topic entirely! Once pulled off track Pro disregard the topic and switched in defense of EVOLUTION which was not the topic at all. Pro thus failed to provide "any" sources "on topic" TOPIC WAS "All of our "Gods" are humanitys artificial constructs" No evidence whatever was provided to establish this thought process, instead pro was drawn off topic completely defending EVOLUTION by Con. The topic never materialized in Pro's argument? Received a demerit on conduct for failure to maintain control of the direction of His debate!

[*Reason removal*] (1) Conduct is insufficiently explained. The voter may only award this point in instances where one side is clearly insulting, forfeits a round, or breaks a rule. The voter"s decision to award "a demerit" is not sufficient. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to assess sources presented by both sides in the debate. Even if one side"s sources were entirely off topic, the voter still has to explain that the other side did present sources that supported their side in the debate.
Posted by KostasT.1526 3 weeks ago
Voting RfD - Reasons for Decision
1. Clarifications: In R1 [Con] - R2 [Pro] it was agreed that the debate would proceed with God's existence as the main topic, justified by the reasoning that either God exists and religion is a divine truth, or God does not exist and religion is therefore man-made, with the positions of Con and Pro accordingly.
2. Conduct: Nothing special here that can lead to these points being awarded. There were no major behaviour flaws.
3. Spelling and grammar: While Con made no serious mistakes in particular, Pro loses the points for their serial grammar errors, with the multiple uses of "witch" instead of "which" being the top.
4. Arguments: i. Con: Con argued that, simply put, a universe and life as complex as these that we observe and experience cannot possibly have not been created by an intelligent being, a God. Pro, however, pointed out many times that their opponent's thesis is a mere assumption, asserting that it was indeed God creating the universe and life, while explaining how abiogenesis is a possible natural origin of life too. Con also attempted to base their argument on the Bible, an action which he supported by claiming that the Bible is consistent with science, without elaborating further. On the other hand, Pro discredited the Bible scientifically via examples such as the Great Flood.
Pro: Pro did a great job arguing against their opponent's claims, nullifying the value of their arguments, as seen above. They may have made no argument against the existence of God themselves, but this can be excused, taking into account Russell's teapot and the inability to prove a claim on the nonexistence of something deemed undetectable and incomprehensible by definition correct.
Hence, with no side having made any successful arguments, yet with the BoP being shifted to Con's thesis due to the circumstances of the debate, Pro wins the argument points.
5. Sources: Both sides cited numerous and credible enough sources.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 weeks ago
along side this
i gave far more detailed explanations for my points along with more credible sources
your vote also states that already agreed with con in the beginning, so i am under a slight suspicion that your vote is based apon bias rather then the actual debate itself.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 weeks ago
Furthermore in your voting process you state he used more valid links

the majority of links he used were .org and .com while the sources i used were mostly .edu

and the last time i checked
a .edu is often more credible then a .com or .org ? -_-
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 weeks ago
FollowerOfChrist1955 you do realize that he litterly decided to change my arugement in the very begining right?

"Regardless of title, the purpose of this debate is to argue for the existence of God"

and even so he started with the bible, i was talking about all religions, not his supposed religion.
as a result we were in a dispute over the bible

and the whole argumentation regarding evolution was because he seems to think that something complex as life requires a creator witch i went to great extent to disprove.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by DawnBringerRiven 3 weeks ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's grammar is a bit lacking. Many letters aren't capitalized, comma splices, missing periods, etc. The only problem in grammar that Con showed was lacking periods. This is why I give grammar point to Con. Pro makes many arguments such as evolutionary progress of humanity and that life can come from non-living particles. Con barely addresses Pro's points and only reinforces their argument while largely neglecting to refute Pro's arguments. This is why I gave the convincing argument point to Pro.
Vote Placed by KostasT.1526 3 weeks ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: RfD in the comments