The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

Calling Top Challengers: Disprove a Single Atheist Argument

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Oak19 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 154 times Debate No: 93609
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Rules are set to age 100+. If you want in, tell me and I'll change it.
(Attention! Despite the title, you may not submit just ANY atheist argument to argue against).

I present below a series of arguments in favor of God, along with rebuttals of them.

Your invitation is to find ANY theistic argument below which you think is correct, with just ONE atheistic rebuttal which you believe is mistaken.

Announce your chosen argument in a comment, along with YOUR ARGUMENTS. I'll accept your challenge and the debate shall begin.

1. Where do morals come from without a God?
Where do morals come from WITH God? Suppose He exists, suppose he wants certain things, or has a character consistent with certain things. On what grounds do either of those facts determine morality?

2. I've been given a conviction by God that He exists.
Distinguish between observation and inference. What experience have you had that leads you to conclude that God has communicated His existence to you? How do you know that it was God, as opposed to anything else? How could you distinguish between it being God, versus a lying deity tricking you? Or a lying non-deity? Or some natural phenomenon?

3. The Bible(Koran, whatever) is perfect
You may point to proofs of the truth of certain parts, but how do you know the other parts are perfect? How do you know some parts aren't true and other parts false?

4. What if you're wrong?
If I'm wrong, then I suppose Thor will never let me into Valhalla. Oh, did you mean YOUR God? Why yours? What if YOU'RE wrong about Thor?
If someone REALLY thought this way, they'd go around and investigate which religion has the worst Hell, so that they can decide to believe in that one, since they"re just believing to try and avoid the bad consequences that might occur on the off-chance that a religion happens to be true. What if you"re wrong about Allah? Or Jesus? (depending on your religion)

5. Could you be wrong? I could be wrong about Batman; maybe he really does exist. That applies to lots of things, Superman, Spiderman, fairies, talking rabbits, flying bears, God, Darth Vader, Harry Potter. I"m willing to grant you that, but I think anyone who went around making sure everybody admitted they could be wrong about flying bears is probably making a mistake somewhere in their thinking. The same applies to God, unless you have more evidence for God than you do for sentient sock puppets.

6. Disorder does not beget order
Now, that"s not entirely true, is it? If you put the right chemicals together and add a supply of energy, atoms will form into crystal shapes, now, won"t they?
The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that a CLOSED system will not increase in order, more or less. Well, are we in a closed system? Not at all. The sun's pumping in energy all the time, and there are tens of thousands of tons of matter from outer space falling onto earth every day. Not-closed systems CAN increase in order.

Plus, even in a closed system, it"s only the total "order" or negentropy that decreases. So long as the total decreases, there"s no reason a local part of it can't increase in "order," even while its surroundings become less orderly.

7. You send yourself to Hell
So, supposing that we were all somehow here, but God didn"t exist, or say he was just a Deist God, who created nature (not heaven or hell), and then never touched anything beyond that, would I go to Hell and SUFFER when I died? Would Hell even exist? If yes, then how? If no, then what difference does God make that ends up with me in Hell, and why shouldn"t he be held responsible for that? Why is it that when God doesn"t intervene, I don"t go to Hell, but when do does, I go to Hell?

8. Atheists have a higher suicide rate than Christians
Atheists may commit suicide more than Christians, but Christians commit suicide more than Hindus. And the Muslims commit even less suicide. Does this prove Islam? I think not. I think it would be a mistake to assume that a position is true or false based on how often the people who hold the position commit suicide. In each case, I suspect there is a different cause of the rate of suicide.
Muslims, for example, might have a closer watch on each other. Hindus might feel they"re needed more by their families, since they tend to live in poorer places.
Atheists may be more isolated than Christians, because there are fewer of them in some countries, like America, and they may not be socially accepted by the Christians that surround them

It"s worth pointing out, also, that global atheist statistics just tend to reflect whatever's going on in China. There may be something about china other than atheism that makes it the way it is, and it would be a mistake to confuse the two.

9. Historical evidence shows that Jesus appeared to people after His death, and that his disciples were genuinely convinced of His resurrection, despite having every predisposition not to be.
- Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon religion, died for his faith. He showed the golden plates that were revealed to him by the Angel Moroni to 11 witnesses, 3 of whom signed a testimony saying Moroni had come to show them the plates. Several of these witnesses later left the church, some were excommunicated against their will. Many were persecuted. The Mormons were kicked out of their homes time after time, until they finally left the country and moved to Mexico (back when Utah was Mexican territory).
Some of these witnesses eventually returned to the church, but even those that didn't affirmed that the angel showed them the plates, 'til the day they died, and none of them denied their testimony while they were estranged from the church.
Does this prove that the Mormons are right? I think not. I think rather, we recognize the following principle:
People seeming to be really convinced of supernatural things is not strong evidence for the truth of those supernatural things, even when they suffer because of their beliefs, or you figure they'd know if they were lying.
If you happen to be Mormon, and accept both the Jesus' disciples idea, and the Mormon witnesses idea, just ask yourself if you'd be convinced of Islam if you were told of similar witnesses about Mohammed flying to heaven on a winged horse.

10. Prophecies come true in the Bible/Koran prove that it's true.
How does that prophecy prove that the other parts of the book are true? Is it possible that some parts are true and other parts false? What about the book that don't have prophecies? Does the "truth" of Isaiah somehow prove the truth of 3 John and the Song of Solomon?

11. The universe must have a cause/explanation. That's God, so God exists.
You've proven that there is a cause/explanation (if the argument is true). Why should it be God? Why not a great cosmic fish? Why not aliens from beyond the universe? Why not Vishnu or Cronos?

12. Fine-tuned universe shows it must have been designed. Therefore God.
So there's design. Why God? How do you know it's not a supernatural internet troll (that enjoys messing with people)? Or a computer simulation? Or a giant cosmic possum? Or a flying bear that coughs out universes, and died 11 billion years ago, so there's no longer a creator of any kind?

13. God is defined as perfect. Perfection includes existence. Therefore God is defined as existent. So, God exists.
This argument works equally well for the existence of a perfect leprechaun. You can define ANYTHING as "perfect," as "existent." That doesn't make it exist.
If an argument works equally well for leprechauns and Batman, that's usually a sign that something's gone wrong.

14. Were you there?
No, but let me ask you. If you were strolling along the beach and found a watch, and observed the intricate workings of its many parts, would you not be justified in inferring that there was a watchmaker? But, were you there when the watch was made? How can you know that the watch was made if you weren"t there?
You already understand implicitly the principle I am going to state explicitly: There are things in the present which tell us things about the past. Evidence. By careful examination of things in their present state, we can often infer things about the past.

15. Science can"t prove or disprove religion
Not so. Religion claims that there are certain things going on in the real world, that we can look for, to see if they"re really there or not. If they are there, then that"s evidence for religion, and it"s evidence against religion if they"re not there. Prayers, for example, are claimed to increase the chances that someone will recover from an illness. So, we could have studies which measure if people get well more often when other people pray for them. If that was a finding, the doctors would recommend prayer, because it was known to work. There would be studies trying to figure out what kind of prayers were most effective, and there would be hand-outs recommending the kind of prayer that most improves someone"s health. That none of these things happens suggests that prayer does not increase the chances of someone"s recovery.
Whenever religion claims something is going on in the real world, that"s an opportunity for there to be evidence in favor of religion. Whenever that evidence is not found, that's evidence against religion.

16. It"s like an elephant that some blind men feel. You can"t tell what it"s like as a whole. Things which are unclear shall become clear.
You can say that ANYTHING will be made clear later on. Leprechauns or flying bears or talking socks. But if someone is going to say that we should pay extra attention to the possibility of flying bears being real, and that even though that seems to not make sense, it"ll all make sense later on...
then we need to know on what grounds you privilege the bear idea instead of the leprechauns.
In short, you need evidence just to make a hypothesis worth even considering, and then, of course, you need more evidence to see if it's true or not.


Challenge accepted,

Thank you for allowing me the chance to disprove a single atheist argument. After reviewing all the atheist rebuttals I have chosen to debate the atheistic rebuttal to argument #15. This was the atheist rebuttal that suggested that science can prove or disprove religion. This could not be more false. Absolute proofs only exist in pure mathematics and logic, neither of these subjects are able to prove nor disprove religion as proofs in these subjects cover a completely different field that does not cover religion. Secondly, Just as science is unable to prove religion, it is also unable to disprove religion. The misconception that science can completely disprove anything was based off the idea of falsification that was created by a philosopher named Karl Popper. Karl Popper believed that science could only reject, or falsify hypotheses that could not find evidence that supports one idea over others. While falsification was a popular philosophical doctrine that was popular with everyone including scientists, it was soon found that falsification was not a complete or even accurate way to build scientific knowledge. This was due to one of the key elements of falsification, that once something was considered to be false, it would forever be false. Problems arose as ideas were falsified due to inaccurate/lack of information. Even before Karl Popper made his popular idea of falsification some scientists were already using a few of its basic principles. One of these scientists was Sir Kelvin. Kelvin is well known for being a physicist,creating the Kelvin temperature scale and also formulating the second law of thermodynamics. What Kelvin was not well known for was falsifying the theory of evolution.
His logic for falsifying evolution can be explained from the following excerpt from an article in the online biologos blog. The author of the article I am referencing is a chemist named Steve Benner, who has a doctorate in chemistry from Harvard university.

"Starting in 1862 and for forty years thereafter, Kelvin used his understanding of thermodynamics to argue that the Earth could not possibly be as old as evolutionists required. Why? Because the Sun could not possibly be so old. 'Even if the Sun were made of the best coal possible', said Kelvin, it could produce heat at its current rate for only about a thousand years. Kelvin thus held that the laws of physics disproved the model of common descent by gradual evolution, key to Darwinian evolution as a theory."

His logic and mathematical calculations were most likely correct. Kelvin did have a gift for mathematics, Anyone who wanted to go into physics would need to understand advanced mathematical concepts in order to solve even basic physics questions after all. The only glaring problem with his logic is... wait for it... The sun did not burn coal to produce energy. Scientists at the time Kelvin lived in were unaware of this glaring fact. So were the evolutionists. No one at this point in time knew that the sun generates its energy through nuclear fusion and radioactive decay. Thus, without being aware that the sun did not burn coal to produce energy, Kelvin and the physics department declared the theory of evolution "falsified."
Despite physics declaring that the theory of evolution was disproven, supporters of evolution continued to believe that the theory of evolution was true despite physics supposedly "Falsifying" it. If the evolutionists did not continue to believe that the theory of evolution was true despite the current evidence at the time suggesting the opposite, we would have never known that evolution was indeed a valid plausible theory. By ignoring the conclusions of science and operating only on the belief that evolution was real, the evolutionists made revolutionary contributions to science and also provided a wonderful example of how falsification can be wrong. This is one of many reasons, why science is based on the principle that

"Science accepts or rejects ideas, it does not disprove them." (

Additional evidence

"Popular media often talks about "scientific proof". However, accumulated evidence can never provide absolute proof " it can only ever provide support. A single negative finding, if confirmed, is enough to overturn a scientific hypothesis or theory. Rather than being proven "once and for all", a hallmark of science is that it is subject to revision when new information is presented or when existing information is viewed in a new light."(

Misconceptions about the nature of uncertainty and change in scientific knowledge. (This article was paraphrased and edited/formatted to highlight the relevant information for our debate. you can find the original unedited article, at As far as I can tell nothing in the unedited longer version of this article contradicts any of the misconception statements here. I copied the following statements word for word, so you could not argue I altered or changed these statements to fit my argument. one note though, I added the words "Misconceptions" and "about" to the original title, as the original title alone did not make it clear these were Misconceptions. A statement that only exists in the original version confirms all of these are contradictions. Again, you have the source to see this is true for yourself. I also included it in my source page just for extra security. P.S please try to forgive me for misusing parentheses, grammar was never my strong suit.:/)

Long list of misconceptions

"Science is a large collection of absolute facts that is fairly static in nature.
"Science is EXACT! (How can you make approximations and be right?) Science is without uncertainty (or at least should be).
"The meaning and the importance of error bars and uncertainties.
"There is always a right answer.
"Students struggle with the idea of the tentativeness of scientific knowledge;
"Scientific ideas are either 'proven' or 'not proven' - there is no sense of the quantitative nature of uncertainty.
"The theory-laden nature of scientific observations
"Scientists are always changing their minds.
"Or, conversely, scientific knowledge is fixed and unchanging.

"On the other end of the spectrum with regard to uncertainty, the process of science is fundamentally uncertain (there is a potentially infinite number of alternative hypotheses to account for any particular observation; confirmation is possible but proof isn't; even experimental disproof is uncertain; Karl Popper notwithstanding).
"If you have 'data' then it has one correct meaning; and is not open to interpretation. (serc.carleton)

With all this evidence, I have clearly shown that science cannot prove nor disprove religion, as science itself can only accept or reject ideas. Science has clearly stated that it does not have the ability to absolutely prove nor disprove anything.


P.S if I forgot a source for any of my statements let me know. As far as I can tell, I have covered everything, however I know there is always the chance I could overlook something.

I look forward to your response to this.

Debate Round No. 1


I'm afraid our time would have been better spent had we followed the system I described, in which you reveal your argument and I decide whether or not to accept a debate over it.

In short, we do not disagree.

I meant "prove" in the sense that most people use it, in a colloquial, rather than a strict sense.

Prove like "proven innocent," which is merely probabilistic, rather than "proven mathematically," which is probabilistic on a higher level, but what we might call in colloquial terms, certain.

Anyway, whether you understand or not my intent, we don't have anything to debate. Shall we forward the debate to the end?
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Oak19 3 months ago
I'm don't consider myself a member of any religion. however, I would still like to debate number 15.

That is the atheist rebuttal suggesting that science can disprove religion.
I have evidence that science cannot prove nor disprove anything
The arguments I have for this come from an actual science website that explains what science can and cannot do.

If you approve allowing me to debate this topic let me know.
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 3 months ago
Oh and I am not interested in debating this. I might vote on it later however.
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 3 months ago
"but I think anyone who went around making sure everybody admitted they could be wrong about flying bears is probably making a mistake somewhere in their thinking."

Probably, or is making a mistake somewhere? If you are convinced someone who believes flying bears is wrong, then relativism is wrong right? Because you have to be relative to believe that others can believe flying bears.

You Atheists are a mess of contradictions. *sigh
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.