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

Does God Exist?

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: 2/22/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 812 times Debate No: 46468
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




I will start off by a short and concise speech, from there my opponent will rebut me and then present his points, then the debate will proceed as normal until we make final rebuttals and conclusions in round 3.

First of all, this universe must have started, or began. There had to be a high and almighty being to create the universe; there had to be a "beginning of things." I have met many secularists who have made many extraordinary claims on how the universe began. God is the best explanation and there is no better explanation for the beginning of the universe.

Also, the Bible remains as one of the most important references for historians to examine the past.[1] This accounts that the Bible is historically accurate and no points in it has been completely proven wrong, otherwise the Bible would have been dismissed long time ago.

The universe has a cause. Surprisingly, many people rejects the idea that the universe has a cause. Logically, everything has a cause, such as clothing to wear, food to eat, wood for materials and a sun to light, warm, and provide life for the Earth. If this is true, then the universe has a cause too, and everything is built for a cause. Then what about God? He is described in the Bible that he is the almighty, the omega, the beginning and the end. This means he is the ultimate cause, the beginning of the cause, the Creator. God is the best explanation that the universe is so fine-tuned. How the Earth comes into the perfect distance with the sun and how we got one moon at a perfect distance. Additionally why DNA is so complex yet codes for such specific parts perfectly. This couldn't have happened on accident. There was a higher intellectual, an Almighty being.

God through the Bible provides morals. The New Testament is a book that provides morals taught by Jesus Christ. It's no coincidence that slowly less people started razing cities after Christ's death as Christianity slowly rises, influencing its morals. It teaches you to give to the poor, help others, love your neighbors as you love thyself, etc. Jesus said in the Bible, that the world shall be evangelized in the future, and now the world's religion is dominantly Christian.

God and the Bible exists, there is no better explanation to why we're here.

I will add more points as the debate continues. I would like to thank my opponent in advance for whom he will ever be for accepting this debate.



I would like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. I am still new to online debating so please bear with me.

I will go through and address my opponents arguments in the order in which he presented them.

My opponent first explains that the universe must have had a beginning and God is the best explanation for the beginning of the universe. The major problem with this initial argument lies in the last sentence where he claims that God is the "best explanation." Assuming for a moment that we accept his premise that the universe must have been created, he offers no reason to believe that the Christian God is the most logical explanation. Why, for instance, is this more logical than the creation of the universe being attributed to the Greek gods, Egyptian gods, Norse gods, or even (to use a modern example) the Hindu gods? If my opponent wishes to suggest that the only logical answer for the origin of the universe is creation by a higher being then I submit that he must prove why the Christian God is specifically the best explanation and more logical than any other god proposed by any other religion.

My opponents second claim is that the bible is a reliable historical document and that it has not been proven wrong. This is, however, blatantly false. It has been scientifically proven that many of the events mentioned in the bible could not have happened. The most significant is Noah's Ark and the story of the great flood. The evidence against this is staggering including that the boat could not hold all of those animals, all of Earth's plants would have died from the flood, and that many animals would not have survived the migration to the Ark [1]. My opponent cannot prove the existence of God using the bible because the bible only makes sense if one presupposes the existence of such a god. He is basically saying the bible is true because the bible says so. I may be mistaken, but I believe this logical fallacy is commonly called "begging the question."

In this paragraph, my opponent defies his own logic. He established that all existing things must have a cause. From this he concludes that the universe has a cause which he attributes to being created by God. However, by his logic God too must have a cause. Something must have created God. He argues that God is the "ultimate cause" and has no creation, but this defies his original premise. He says that the universe must have an origin so it was created by god but god does not need an origin. Either all things need an origin, in which case God Himself must have been created/originated from some other cause, or some things do not require a cause in which case the universe does not need to have been created by a god.

My opponent then argues that God must exist because there is no other way to explain how the Earth sits in balance to the sun and the existence of DNA. He neglects, however, one very simple and viable answer: probability. The fact is that there are more planets and suns in the universe than we can accurately calculate. Given the sheer size of the universe, it makes perfect sense that some planets would be the perfect distance away from a sun to develop life. Of course, science cannot yet fully prove how life formed and developed to the life we see today, but this does not mean that the bible is correct.

This final paragraph is completely irrelevant to the debate. I do not deny that the bible is a book about morality centered around the teachings of Jesus, but this has nothing to do with proving the existence of God one way or the other. The Dhammapada and Bhagavad-Gita are also books on morality but they do not prove that Buddhism or Hinduism are necessarily true religions.

I welcome my opponents responses and look forward to a respectful and interesting debate.

Source 1:
Debate Round No. 1


- Why the Christian God over others
My opponent stated that if there was a beginning of things, it didn't have to be the Judeo-Christian God, but to put other religions into context.
The reason why I believe in Christianity is because the Bible is huge but yet contains no errors; also that many revelations of the Bible have become true,
such as Jesus's statement that the world shall be evangelized, which explains why the world is dominantly Christian today. I do recognize that my opponent has disagreed with this,
but I will prove why the Bible is indeed true in my next points. Additionally, why I chose Christianity above other religions is because one,
Christianity is the only religion in which God reaches out to man, as opposed to the others where man must reach out to God. Number two, it is
the only religion that offers all of its followers true salvation because our salvation is based upon Christ's works. Number 3, it's the only
religion in which its leader, Jesus Christ, lived a perfect life to God's laws and fulfilling all of the prophecies of the Old Testament.

- Does the Bible have proven errors
I would like to point out that any part of the bible that has been claimed as an error by others is very open-ended. Due to the fact that
my opponent has particularly and greatly mentioned the great flood, so will I. With that in mind, there has actually been evidence that the Great
Flood did happen. There was an interview with Christiane Amanpour, the world's best-known underwater archaeologist, who stated that the Great Flood
did happen and it was very possible back then. The scientist stated that the glaciers back then were huge and would've melt, causing a gigantic flood.[1]
Other scientists stated that there was a huge flood in the now-salty black sea, which used to be an isolated freshwater lake surrounded by farms.
Later, the natural barrier separating it from the Mediterranean sea, burst open, flooding the whole entire area, creating the Black Sea.
Replying to your claim that the Ark can not hold all the animals, I would like to point out Genesis 6:15 in the Bible that it tells you the size
of the Ark. It measured that the Ark was 300x50x30 cubits, thus making the volume of the boat 43,500 cubic meters. This is equivalent to the 522 standard
America railroad stock cars, each holding about 240 sheep.[2] This proves that the Ark could fit the number of animals and insects in cages.
I would also like to state that the plants could have regrown, after all, when the Earth was forming,
plants should've been growing at some point in time. Therefore, claiming that the Great Flood never happened has not been completely proven.

- The universe has a cause
I was stating that God is the ultimate cause, the creator of logic, he is the "Almighty, the Omega, the beginning and the end." He is the ultimate
beginning point for us, and that he is the origin. Also recognize the words, "The beginning and the end," he was always there. This then goes right into
my next point or rebuttal.

- How our world is so perfect
My opponent emphasizes probability. Yes, many things could go by probability but how we, our environment, our body, and etc. could be crafted
so perfectly that it couldn't have been caused by just probability. The other day I was cutting open a lobster while it was alive for an experiment.
I looked at the interior of the lobster and it was so complex how each part inside the lobster had its own function. This amount of complexity
could not have been caused by some probability and it could not have formed on accident, a higher
intellectual or an exalted being must've created this. Another good example is the modern day laptop, everything in it has its
own cause and function. Anything unnecessary would cost more money for whoever built it. It couldn't have been formed on accident;
this compares to the universe.

- The morality of the Bible
What I was trying to state about the morals of the Bible is that the morals it teaches is perfectly crafted and many people live off
with advice from the Bible, especially the New Testament, which its teachings connects so much with the world that I consider it
a contributing factor to his existence, though it may be a small contribution depending on how you personally put it.
The Byzantine Empire did and they lived for a millennium because of their strong and national Christian beliefs.
I am one of the people that live off with advice taken from the New Testament and I couldn't have been better, undeniably.





-Christian God V. Others
My opponent suggests that we should prefer the Christian God due to two reasons. 1. The bible contains no errors (which I will address later) and 2. Because of the structure of Christianity (God reaches our to man and Jesus offering salvation/living life God's way). This second point, however, is NOT PROOF of Christianity's truthfulness. A religion is not true just because its deity reaches out to humanity (a feature which, contrary to my opponent's claim, is found in all religions/mythologies) and it is not true just because it has a "perfect" prophet. Again, almost all major religions and mythologies have a prophet who is claimed to have lived a perfect life by the tenants of that religion. This gives us no reason to prefer Christianity's explanation of the world over any other belief system. It may be why my opponent chooses it has his own faith, which is perfectly reasonable and understandable, but it is not proof of the existence of God.

-Errors in the Bible
I want to stress that the point of this argument is not to linger over the issue of Noah's Ark itself but over the way of proving the bible. The only way we have of looking at the bible and determining it's accuracy is to apply modern scientific understandings to what the bible claims to have happened. My opponent cannot say that the events in the bible are possible because God made them possible, and here's why. His claim is that God exists because the bible says so and the bible is true. Now if we want to analyze the bible we must have a method of proving it true independent of the conclusions we draw from it (the existence of God).

Second, my opponent is saying we should believe the events (the flood is the example given, but it seems he means most of the bible itself) because it has not yet been dis-proven, but the problem is that it has yet to be PROVEN. The problem with the ark goes beyond the flood (which yes, it is quite possible that there were large floods in the past), room for the animals (which there would not have been), plants regrowing (even though a plant that is dead cannot "regrow"), and the problem that many animals wouldn't survive the journey to the ark (which my opponent hasn't given a good explanation for) [1]. The biggest problem is that there is no evidence that it ever happened! The real problem is that my opponent has merely laid the fragile groundwork for why it COULD have happened. This is not meant to apply just to the ark, but to all events in the bible and indeed God Himself. I could pick up a book which says that in the year 1263 a man named Oliver lived in London with a wife and 3 kids. Is it true? By my opponent's logic it must be since 1. It is physically possible for this man to have lived with such a family 2. A book says it is true 3. You cannot prove that such a man didn't exist. Proving that events in the bible COULD have happened is not proof that they DID happen. This is also ignoring the fact that some events in the bible are impossible such as Methuselah living almost 1,000 years.

-Cause of the universe
Again, my opponent has failed to explain his own contradiction. He has two premises which cannot exist simultaneously and from which he draws his circular conclusions.
1. Everything that exists has an origin
2. The universe exists
3. The universe has an origin
4. The universe was created by God
5. God has always existed
From which we draw the implication 6. God has no origin

As I have demonstrated, this string of reasoning does not hold. Either all things require an origin, in which case God Himself must have an origin or not all things require an origin in which case the universe itself does not and thus there is no reason to believe God created it.

-The "perfect" state of Earth.
First of all, I would say that the nature of our solar system is not perfect because, ideally, a perfect world could last forever. However one day our star will die and all life on Earth will die, possibly ending the human race. No what I would call a perfect living arrangement [2].

Our impending doom aside, marveling at complex system is NOT EVEN CLOSE TO PROOF of a creator. Just because you dissected a living lobster (which, I must say, is extraordinarily cruel and you should reconsider your practice of slicing open live creatures regardless of your purpose) and found that it had functioning organs does not mean that it was created by God. The working biological systems evolve over time with non-functioning systems dying off. Thus all that remains are systems that work. I do not wish this debate to get into the issue of evolution because I will be the first to admit that NO explanation of life works perfectly. The point is simply that saying "gosh, our universe sure is complex" is not proof that it was created.

-Biblical Morality
Again, this argument is not relevant because it does nothing to suggest that God exists, it simply asserts that many people follow similar morals from the new testament. I could go on a long rant with my remaining few thousand characters about the coercive spread of Christianity and how it's influence was for many years (and in some respects remains) oppressive but that would be to fall into an irrelevant tangent. I am glad that my opponent's life has been bettered through his religious belief, and I sincerely respect and am gladdened by this fact. I know many people who are made happier by their faith and I encourage them to hold on to it if it makes their lives better. But the second we confuse "faith" with "proof" we begin making a very dangerous mistake which defies the laws of logic and reason.

1. All Those Animals
Debate Round No. 2


- Christian God V. Others
In your previous argument, you submitted that I must prove why the Christian God has more truth to it and stands above all other religions. I explained how the uniqueness of Christianity is something to consider as opposed to other religions such as the Roman and Greek mythologies. There is a multitude of other reasons why Christianity isn't just another mythology or other religion; it's listed here: .

- Errors in The Bible
My assertion wasn't just that the Bible is true. I also stated that the Bible is one of the most important references used by Historians. Sources here: and . This therefore is a proving factor that the Bible is not false. I would also like to draw the implication that every claim that has attacked any part of the Bible has not been proven true, otherwise the Bible would have been dismissed by the majority of the world long time ago. An additional reason why the Bible in whole is true because many parts of it has been proven. Such as the Exodus, when underwater archaeologists found numerous of Egyptian chariot parts under the Red Sea. . There is so much evidence of each part of the Bible that they even wrote the "Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology." (It's on Amazon for anyone who's interested) This therefore proves your "family in London claim example" wrong and that the Bible is indeed true. We are finding more archaeological evidence as we move on; the more we dig, the more evidence that is discovered, proving the Bible.

- Cause of The Universe
I would like to re-emphasize again that it is stated in the Bible, that God is "The Almighty and the Omega, the beginning and the end." (Revelation 1:8 in the Bible) This explains that God can do anything. He was always there, he created logic and reasoning, and that God himself is the origin and beginning of all things, that he is the beginning; which is also described in the Bible that he is the creator and destroyer of all things.

- Our "state" and how we got here
By "perfect," I hoped you would knew that I was talking figuratively in most cases, but by that particular word I was particularly mentioning how our complex DNA and genes generally serves our purpose, so that we could form arms, fingers, our uniqueness, etc. Our DNA is very complex and even serves the right purpose. It couldn't come out of nowhere and atoms can't just one day suddenly and randomly mash up together and assemble a complete and perfect sequence of DNA in the first place, even for the simplest life on Earth, it's mathematically absurd. It's as simple as this, creation proves that there is a creator. I would also want to submit a question to my opponent about how he thinks this universe was created and how his or her claims stands out to other claims that are different, and if it serves as a better explanation than the fact that there is an almighty and intellectual being.

- Morals of The Bible
What I was trying to, again, explain about the Bible and its morals were that the morals it teaches is outstanding, unique, and stands out above all other moral teachings from other religions, philosophies, and etc. Many morals that do not relate from the Bible can corrupt the world such as a Roman-Greco philosophical acceptance of pederasty and that they believe it teaches a boy how to become a man, this is horrifying indeed, especially today. . The morals of our Bible pushed culture to progress and even granted the Byzantium Civilization a millennium to live which is why I used the Byzantines as an example in my previous argument. What I'm trying to say is, our Biblical morals are specific but do not corrupt the world, Jesus taught these morals which enhanced culture and progression and that these morals are good guidelines granted to us from an intellectual being, God. Therefore, the morals of the New Testament are crafted in such a good-manner, some very high intellectual would have thought this out, which can be a contribution to God's existence. I would also like to point out that the teachings of the Bible, especially the New Testament, should be taken as a message, not literally; it's not like the U.S. Constitution where everything in the document is taken literally, as opposed to the New Testament is to be taken as a message.

- Conclusion
In conclusion, I have proved why Christianity stands above all other religions due to things such as its uniqueness. That the Bible continues to have more evidence everyday as time progresses with so many archaeological evidence that we can absolutely conclude that the Bible is the truth. The universe and everything that has a beginning has a cause, which therefore needs an ultimate cause, the creator of causes, the creator of logic & reasoning, and the creator of everything else, that is God. How we are here and how our complexity forms us must be created by an almighty and intellectual being. How the morals and the teachings of the Bible are so well-crafted that it does not corrupt society and even progresses culture, is outstanding. God does indeed exist and now is not the time to ignore the real and reasoned evidence.

As a personal (and maybe irrelevant to this particular debate) message to everyone:

Faith was emphasized very much in the Bible and it all starts with belief. If you start there, then you can easily find all the scientific and mathematically based rationale to support a belief. Additionally, that a super complex, self-aware life arising from a simple cell organism even over billion of years ago with nothing but chance and genetic leaps to advance, is unlikely. To even form the simplest life a single-cell organism requires which is a huge amount of complex DNA in perfect sequences and for a bunch of random atoms to mash up together is actually mathematically absurd, it's completely preposterous. There is many more evidence to consider, and intellectual curiosity is easy to find. There is absolutely an intelligence behind life in this universe and that its entity is far beyond physics, or logic or reasoning. Faith and evidence do not need to contradict or cancel each other out. Think about everything here, and give faith another chance.


Before I begin my final rebuttal I'd like to thank my opponent for offering this opportunity to debate. As I said before, I am rather new and enjoy the chance to fully explore complex ideas with another respectful individual such as my opponent.

-Christian God V. Others
Christianity is not more "unique" than any other religion. That being said, uniqueness does not equal proof. I scanned the list of reasons in the link and not a single one of those reasons was proof of anything. The final one simply said "All the leaders of every other religion, need Christ as their Savior as well as their followers." It was, at best, nothing more than a list of reasons why an individual might prefer to be Christian, but does nothing to actually prove it's accuracy as an explanation of the universe. The belief that Christianity is extraordinarily unique and superior to all other religions is both blatantly false and the product of ignorance or delusion about other religions. This belief is not proof.

-Errors in the Bible
I have no doubt that the Bible might be used as a kind of historical reference as it was the written product of humans from many years ago historically. But even if we assume that some events in the Bible were true, it does not prove that the entire book was true, and it most certainly does not prove my "London family" example wrong. Because I love examples, allow me to submit another (and perhaps several more before this is over). Imagine I had a book that said three things:
1. Gravity is a force that pulls smaller objects to larger objects
2. The Earth orbits around the sun not the other way around
3. Inside of some caves live magical gnomes who make leather shoes.
The first two claims of my book are true, and we could prove that they are true. Once we do, we will have proven that a majority of my book is undoubtedly true. Does that mean claim number three is true? Of course not! We do not accept entire documents as true just because select parts are true. The same can be said for the Bible. Even if we prove the Exodus true, it does not prove that Jesus was immaculately conceived or that Sodom and Gomorrah were obliterated in a rain of fire and brimstone. Each part must be proved individually. Thus the existence of God and his supposed creation of the Universe must be proved. The claims made by the Bible itself are not proof.

-Cause of the Universe
For the final time, my opponent has yet to resolve his contradiction. Why can God exist with no beginning but the universe can't?! I outlined this argument in my last rebuttal so I'll try to be brief. Either all things must have an origin, so God must too, or not all things have an origin, thus we have no reason to believe the universe does, let alone concede that it must have been created, let alone concede that this creator must have been the Christian God. I cannot express this enough, so I will put it in all caps, not because I want to shout it but because I want to emphasize that it is the crux of this entire debate: THE BIBLE IS NOT PROOF OF ITS OWN CONTENTS.

-The state of the universe/Earth/life
It is interesting that here my opponents makes the argument that DNA must have an origin because it is so complex yet moments ago argued that God, the most complex being in existence, does not need an origin. DNA cannot spontaneously emerge in the universe yet God can. Again, my opponent sets forth these laws for the universe as proof of a god whose very existence contradicts these laws. As for my opponents question about my personal beliefs, I'll say that my "belief" is irrelevant because belief does not substitute proof and I will not pretend to have proof for the origin of all things. I'm not here to argue how the universe was formed, simply to argue that there is no reason to believe in God. Saying "well we don't know the real reason so it must have been God" is not proof.

-Morals of the Bible
There are so many things wrong with this arguments. Starting with the fact that moral teachings are not proof of a supreme being. Leading into the fact that many non-Abrahamic religions (Buddhism and Hinduism being prominent examples in the modern world) have exceptional moral teachings that do not "corrupt the world." Followed by the fact that Christianity is not always used for good (conquest, slavery, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc.). Ending with this statement by my opponent "the teachings of the Bible, especially the New Testament, should be taken as a message, not literally." My opponent has claimed throughout the entire debate that we are to take the Bible as a true document with accurate explanations of the world and now backtracks with the statement that parts of it aren't really meant to be taken literally. This introduces a whole new host of problems concerning how we determine what is meant to be literal and what isn't? My opponent defended Noah's Ark as real and if that is not outside the bounds of possibility then what is? Why do we accept that God was meant to be a literal belief but other parts weren't? If the Bible randomly shifts between literal and metaphorical messages, that is all the more reason to not accept it as proof of its contents.

I would like to leave you with this example. Say we are walking down the road and we encounter an intricately sealed box. We cannot see, hear, or feel its contents. Attached to it is a note which reads "Inside this box lives Bob the Great Fairy. Bob is perfect and can do anything. Bob has always existed, and created this box. Bob also had this note created." Should we believe that Bob the Great Fairy resides in this box? On the one hand it seems absurd. After all, we don"t know that fairies exist, and nothing could feasibly live in a sealed box that long. On the other hand, the evidence is overwhelming. We have a box which very well could contain something. We can"t see, hear, or feel the contents so we can"t prove there ISN"T a fairy inside. We have a note confirming Bob"s existence which must be true since it was written by Bob who is very honest. And the note explains the origins of this mysterious and complex box. I guess we must conclude that Bob the Great Fairy resides in the box.

This is the logic of my opponent and the evidence he presents. When you are deciding how to vote, I ask you to consider three general points of proof.
1.A theory is not proven by the absence of evidence to the contrary (the box does not contain a fairy just because we cannot look inside and prove that it doesn"t contain a fairy).
2.A document does not stand as proof of its own contents (Bob doesn"t exist just because the note was written by Bob and confirms his existence).
3.A theory is not proven true just because it explains something (Bob is not real just because we have no better theory on the contents or origins of the box.)

With that I"d like to turn to my opponent"s case and summarize the general attacks I have made.
There is no reason to prefer the Christian conception of the Universe over others.
The Bible is not true because parts of it could possibly be true.
The Bible cannot prove it's own contents.
If all things must have a cause, God does too. If not all things must have a cause then we have no reason to assume the universe has one either.
Saying our world is complex does not prove the spontaneous existence of the most complex being ever.
Saying that Christianity teaches good morals does not prove that an omnipotent and omniscient being exists.

My opponent has not actually proven a single thing in this entire debate. I mean no disrespect to Christianity or its followers, but the facts remain. The existence of God must be taken on faith, because there is no proof of His existence beyond the word in a book. If Bob's note does not confirm his existence, God's does not either.

I would like to once again thank my opponent for this debate, and thank all who my choose to judge it. I thoroughly enjoyed this discussion.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by michael90000 3 years ago
Well, I debated this when I was new to the concept debate... But I learned from mistakes.
Posted by PiedPiper 4 years ago
No worries, I understood it just fine. Sometimes my formatting on here gets messed up too so I don't mind.
Posted by michael90000 4 years ago
I would just like to point out to excuse what happened to the word and paragraph formatting on my round 2 debate. Something went wrong there.

Rasputin45; His videos is what got me to get into debating for religions. I got a little ticked off at those mockings. I do see some of his points though, which I am going to prove wrong.
Posted by Rasputin45 4 years ago
I commend the Piedpiper even though he is new for his argumentation but I myself would just redirect the instigator to many darkmatter2525 videos.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Mikal 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: If this was worded differently and said something like God probably exists, I think pro would have won. Due to the resolution be a positive claim and saying God does exist, Con takes this win. He refutes enough of pros arguments to make sure the BOP is not upheld. Pro tries some philosophical arguments and hints at the KCA along with the argument from morality which Con refutes well enough to give him arguments. This was a case of a hard BOP that made pro lose.
Vote Placed by chewster911 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: In this debate Pro preferred to use some flawed philosophical arguments to prove the existence of God and mostly used the bible in his arguments and presented it as evidence for God. Since bible is not a reliable historical evidence,and yet it is the only argument Pro had,i have to say that Pro had no strong arguments for the existence of God,while Con pointed out the flaws in Pro's arguments and rebutted them successfully. Argument points to Con. Con also used more reliable source for his points,so source points to Con also. This was an interesting debate. Well done.