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

Atheists are wrong. God is real

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 2/12/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 564 times Debate No: 45693
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




Every breath that flows in the nose,
Every beat that throbs in the heart,
Every artery that pulsates in the body,
Every thought that arises in the mind,
Speaks to you that God is near.

Every flower that wafts fragrance,
Every fruit that attracts you,
Every gentle breeze that blows,
Every river that smoothly flows,
Speaks of God and His mercy.

The vast ocean with its powerful waves,
The Mighty Himalayas with its glaciers,
The bright Sun and stars in the wide sky,
The lofty tree with its branches,
The cool springs in the hills and dales,
Tell me of His omnipotence.

The melody of sweet music,
The oration of powerful orators,
The poems of reputed poets,
The inventions of able scientists,
The operations of dexterous surgeons,
The utterances of holy saints,
The thoughts of the Bhagavad Gita,
The revelations of the Upanishads,
Speak of God and His wisdom.


Atheist want proofs for the existence of God. Can they give proof for the non-existence of God? No one has succeeded in showing proofs that God does not exist.

Even many educated men now say boldly that there is no God, that everything in this world goes on and evolves according to definite laws. Can law arise by itself? Can any law come out of nothing? Surely there must be an ultimate cause. That is God. That is the supreme Brahman or the Absolute. God is self-existent Being. He is infinitely powerful, wise and good.

The notion of God means an absolutely perfect being. An absolutely perfect being must have all the positive attributes, including the attributes of existence. So God must exist.

The existence of God cannot be proved by scientific experimentation. It is purely a question of faith and refers to the intuitive side of man.

The deepest craving, the deepest aspiration in man is for eternal happiness, eternal knowledge and eternal Truth. Man should search for some supernatural entity which can satisfy his deepest cravings and aspirations.

As we explain everything within Nature by the law of cause and effect, so also Nature as a whole must be explained. It must have some cause. This cause must be different from the effect. It must be some supernatural entity, i.e., God.

Nature is not a mere chance collection of events, a mere jumble of accidents, but an orderly affair. The planets move regularly in their orbits, seeds grow into trees regularly, the seasons succeed each other in order. Now Nature cannot order itself. It requires the existence of an intelligent being, i.e., God, who is responsible for it. Even Einstein, the great scientist, was strongly convinced of the creation of the universe by a Supreme Intelligence.

Everything in Nature has some purpose. It fulfils some function or other. Certainly every object by itself cannot choose a function for itself. Their different functions ought to have been planned or designated by a single intelligent Being or God.


I'm going into this assuming by "God", you mean the deity of Christianity, seeing as "God" as a name, rather than a title, is usually only written as such when referring to that religion. If that is not the case, you will have to correct me in the following round. Please do confirm what form of deity you're arguing for. None the less, I will provide an argument that should deal with most interpretations of what deity is.

First of all, let's be clear. Atheists, or any reasonable person really, are not asking for 100% undeniable proof that a god does or does not exist. What we're really looking for is serious evidence which strongly suggests one of the two positions. Neither position can give "proof" truly. So then, yes, Atheists desire evidence of God's existence. I feel this is a woefully unfilled evidential burden on the part of Theists and Deists and I hope my opponent is up for the task of giving a serious argument in favor of a God's existence. But that we shall have to see.

Now, you want evidence for the non-existence of God, correct? Well, thankfully,we do have evidence of that kind. Theistic gods, especially the gods of the Abrahamic religions, are all verifiably falsified according to their representation in their respective holy books. The earth was not formed 6,000 years ago, woman is not the result of a blood clot taken from a man, and so on. As for a Deistic god, well, this is not a falsifiable argument. However, there are reasons to suspect it is not true, which I shall detail later.

You bring up a curious statement in your argument. You mention that, if God exists, he would be a being of perfection, and perfection includes existence. Therefore, God exists. In other words, "If God exists, then he exists". Well...of course. It's a completely redundant point to make. Of course, if God exists, existence would naturally be a part of his character. But that's exactly what is being challenged here. Whether or not God exists. You cannot simply conclude that God exists from this ridiculous assertion alone. You also mention that man has a deep craving for forms of eternity. "Eternal happiness, eternal knowledge, and eternal Truth". For starters I disagree that is the case. I do not think it is so that man desires eternity in everything, and in fact, there are many that strongly assert they don't. The late Christopher Hitchens when it was known he would soon die from cancer was asked something to this effect. To which he replied "I wouldn't have it any other way". Some people are quite comfortable living a life they know is temporary. The knowledge of living, experiencing the world, and then leaving it to make room for the next generation brings them great solace.

But that is not even quite relevant, as even if it were the case that man desired eternity as a deepest desire that does not suggest that we should turn to thoughts of the supernatural, or a realm beyond our own, as a means to achieve this desire. If anything it means we should look away from such childish, fanciful wish-thinking, and instead look to science and studies related to human biology and anti-aging. In the end, if we want to live eternally, I contend the result will come from science, not religion.

Now, the remainder of your post seems to be describing something akin to a combination of the Teleological argument (design and order of the universe) and the Cosmological argument (the First Cause). This relates back to Deism, and why it seems to me to be a very weak argument. Let's go in reverse order, shall we? You contend that we explain nature by the law of cause and effect. While yes, as a general rule we operate under such a worldview, that doesn't mean such a notion will always work. And indeed, going back far enough, it has to break down by necessity. There can not always be another "cause". Eventually, you will come to the first cause, the beginning of time itself. Now, you propose God as this first cause. However, the universe does not necessitate a God in order to exist. Why could the universe itself not have existed forever? Or rather, matter. As far as we know, matter can neither be created nor destroyed. It's form can only simply be changed. This means that matter is truly "eternal". There's no need for a God to explain the origins of the universe. Matter has simply always existed. Matter formed in a particular arrangement, and this caused the Big Bang, which in turn led to the creation of our universe. So why do you assume God, if there is no need?

Then there's the issue of the design of the universe, and of life itself. The problem with this mindset is that, as you make note of, God is a perfect being. And yet the design of the universe is far from perfect as we can imagine. In fact, it is very likely that this is the worst universe we could live in. There are many fundamental alterations to the universe one can think of that would make things better for us, yet there seem to be few if any that one could suggest which wouldn't render life for us an impossibility. The universe simply is not as magnificently designed as you seem to think it is. When we look into space, we see that the Andromeda Galaxy is headed on a direct collision course with our own Milky Way. Complete and utter annihilation is coming. Does that truly speak of divine, perfect planning? I think not.

And what of our own biology, and it's flaws? What of the structure of the eye, for instance? With our crosswork of nerves blocking the light receptors at the very back? Or perhaps more obviously flawed, the nerves in our very neck. I shall let Professor Dawkins explain this.

The human body simply isn't as grand a design as you make it out to be. Our biology, and the biology of other species, have some very glaring flaws which, if there was a grand, perfect designer, simply shouldn't be there. Nor is the structure of the universe all that grand either. Either there is no designer, or the designer is a very, very inept one. Far more likely is the former than the latter. The latter is an unnecessary assumption.
Debate Round No. 1


meliss56 forfeited this round.


Uhh...alright then.
Debate Round No. 2


meliss56 forfeited this round.


That really is a shame.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by KnightArtorias 2 years ago
You want to keep a topic perfect for a debate website.

Good luck with that.
Posted by pyrophilia 2 years ago
Let's keep this anger-sparking opinion out of this site. Nobody is gonna change their opinion, and you can't back up god with facts.
Posted by roshan_wijerathna 2 years ago
waiting ....
Posted by IReason 2 years ago
i like turtles
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cheetah 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: FF. S and G undoubtedly goes to Con for better diction. CA goes to Con for actually providing arguments while Pro did not make any rebuttals. Cob also used a video to further expand and back his arguments.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 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 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: Such a pity. Pro I thought was going to engage in the debate after the opening statement but all for naught. Better luck next time.