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

Does God Truly Exist? Does Jesus Exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 10/6/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 411 times Debate No: 80566
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)




As a christian, I do believe that God exists. There is research that shows that he does. I also believe Jesus exists. However, I know some people do not thinks so. I would like them to try and prove their point. I fight hard for my cause, so have a good point!


Faith is believing in something without evidence. Therefore this argument is over before it began.

I accept the ontological challenge and I accept it in this way: the answer to the question with which we confront ourselves, does god exist, is to me, yes, it does. It must do. It must do because it is so real to those who believe in it. They're people of whom it may be said that for them God does exist, I've become perfectly persuaded to this by now. There is no form of persuasion that would make me ascent to this proposition. Some of us are born.. we're born too.

I cannot disprove gods existence same way as I can't disprove the existence of Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy. The thing is I'm not the one who needs to prove nor disprove anything. It's the one who is claiming it to be true has to have the burden of proof. I know you will in some way give supposed proof (rather propose questions than proof) mostly from passages from a book, first used to control people, that can be altered throughout many years, the bible. That to me is not evidence nor is personal anecdotes. I mean logically speaking if a guy came running up to you one day shouting "I have spoken to an invisible man, he told me this and that". Not only would you think the man is crazy or hallucinating but IT is he who has to prove he spoke to this supposed invisible person not the other way around. I don't have to disprove squat but I'ill do my best to see how thinking for ones self and thinking logically, one will see how religion got so many things wrong in the past that will beg the question if they got these things WRONG, it it possible that the existence of god is wrong too PLUS even if he does exist (to those people who see it that way), religion itself should be abolished for it's immoral doctrines"for example"The suicide bombing community is entirely faith based. The genital mutilation community is entirely faith based. Slavery is mandated by the Bible. I won't dwell on this as that is an entirely different topic.

Here's how religion has this effect, it's derived from the childhood of our species, from the bawling, fearful period of infancy. It comes from the time when we didn't know that we lived on an orb; we thought we lived on a disc. And we didn't know that we went around the sun or that the sky was not a dome; when we didn't know that there was a germ theory to explain disease, and innumerable theories for the explanation of things like famine. It comes from a time when we had no good answers, but because we are pattern-seeking animals (a good thing about us), and because we will prefer even a conspiracy theory or a junk theory to no theory at all (a bad thing about us). This is and was our first attempt of philosophy, just as in some ways, it was our first attempt at science, and it was all founded on and remains founded on a complete misapprehension about the origins, first of the universe, and second, about human nature. We now know a great deal about the origins of the universe, and a great deal about our own nature.

Don't you dare give me 'God of the Gaps' theories again.. I know you will as you have really no other so called evidence. What I mean by this is that if Science can't explain something.. automatically it has to be a supernatural being. As you will see below there have been many things in the past that at first god was taught to do it but then ultimately explained by physical research, that EVERYONE can see. You can't have a logical intellectual discussion with a religious person because everything one says the religious automatically go god did it. Don't know that.. god must have done it. This is very bad for the future of mankind. No need for innovation we already know.. god is behind it. Over the past few hundred years and especially recently things that were once thought to be unexplainable.. automatically god did it (hence our pre historic minds), these have been proven otherwise. Mountains caused by tectonic plats colliding, a person having a seizure due to uncontrollable firing of brain activity and not possessed by the devil, the rain comes from water vapour taken from the see held in the clouds not gods tears. Evolution is now becoming truer and truer with scientific research continually proven it. When does it stop. God had nothing to do with these things. Plus religion persecuted Galileo for speaking out on that the world was round and not flat as purposed by god. If we all followed religion we would be very primitive indeed. Since everything is told that god is behind it.. there is no need for innovation.. which is absurd to say the least.

Recently, the Vatican announced that limbo, the destination of the unbaptized child soul, no longer exists. There's no such place. St. Augustine was in error, in sending the souls of so many unbaptized children to this destination for so long. Among the comments that I heard about this, one of the mildest, actually, was that of a woman raised in the Catholic faith whose child had died before baptism could take place who had for many years believed that that's where her unbaptized child had gone and she said, "They can't tell me that place doesn't exist. It's been as real to me as anything possibly could be for so long. They've no right to tell me now that this no longer exists."" Ontologically, limbo exists for those who believe in it just as God does. I'm not here to deny that. It's only a few decades now since the rival church of Rome, the Church of England, announced really no one actually goes to hell. It could be that after you die you're forbidden God's grace, but there's no real place of eternal, unending, infinite torture and torment with which those who claim the grace of God and the redemption of Jesus made a living for so many years and how do they make their living? By lying to children. Think of it: hundreds of years of people proudly earning their keep by lying to children and terrifying them and saying that because they could do that they're morally superior to us. Reason, common sense, decency, ordinary decency rebels against this kind of mind-forged manacle. Hell exists in the minds of several people I've spoken to just today. For them it's real, and I don't say that it's not. What I want to show is that it can, if it does exist, nonetheless be abolished, like many other mind-forged manacles and manmade tyrannies that confront us. Infact, that this belief in a supreme and unalterable tyranny is the oldest enemy of our species, the oldest enemy of our intellectual freedom and our moral autonomy, must be met, must challenged and must be overthrown.

Now I know PRO does not believe in the existence of the sun god Ra. I'm practically certain he doesn't believe in the existence of Zeus. If you pick up a copy of my portable atheist, a selection of the finest writings by non-believers down the years, and just turn to the three pages where Menken H.L. Menken lists the easiest-to-name 3,000 gods that used to be worshiped and are no longer accepted to exist by anybody. You'll spare me the trouble of reading them out. No, he thinks he doesn't just know, PRO, that there is a god, he knows which one is the right one, from a potentially infinite list. Actually, from a list that's as long as the number of people there are or have ever been in the human species because if you ever argue with a theist or a deist, you'll find they all believe in a god of their very own. Indeed they often say a personal god. So out of what are we reifying a concept that applies to all of us? Out of nothing but wish thinking, nonsense, fear and ignorant and above all"I"m not quitting on this point"servility. Everyone reading this is an atheist. Everyone can name a god in which they do not believe. Let them advance the case that the one in which they believe is the superior one. Let Pro be the first person I"ve ever seen to do that convincingly and I will show him due respect. I don"t think the task can undertaken.
Debate Round No. 1


HanSolo35 forfeited this round.


I believe I have gotten across what I wanted to get across so yea. I will reiterate the question.. first tell me why you don't believe in in other gods like Allah or Thor or Zeus, or The flying Spagetti Monster exist and that is most probably why your god doesn't exist too.
I mean you will probably say something like, "well I grew up with it, I know it to be true".. what makes you say your god is real to a person growing up in islam any different.. they grew up believing their god is the right god. Why do you do tis? I think because neither of ye have any evidence. You are nearly as atheistic as me as you believe in 1 more god than me.
Just see what Richard Dawkins said here when he was asked the question "What if your wrong"... Well Pro what if YOU are wrong:

Now remember the key word there and you religious always use it and that is 'believe'.. believe is another word for 'faith'.
When I said at the beginning of round one,
"Faith is believing in something without evidence. Therefore this argument is over before it began."
Let me elaborate:
What I meant to say is "FAITH believing in something/someone without evidence."

The definition of faith/belief is: "Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof"

Religion is: "The belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers"

Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important. Where once it used to be able, by its total command of a worldview, to prevent the emergence of rivals, it can now only impede and retard"or try to turn back"the measurable advances that we have made.
Sometimes, true, it will artfully concede them. But this is to offer itself the choice between irrelevance and obstruction, impotence or outright reaction, and, given this choice, it is programmed to select the worse of the two.


The whole "GOD" thing is similar to the situation in North Korea. North Koreans have been taught since childhood that the "Dear Leader" is indeed a God, so they actually believe it because they know nothing else since childhood. As children, we were drilled and instructed NOT to challenge religion, but to accept 'on faith" or be damned to hellfire and damnation.
It's brainwashing.. just look at the westboro baptist church.

Saying that the universe couldn't have come into existence on it's own, and then saying it had to have had a supernatural cause is ridiculous. Again, it's special pleading. Anyway, why do you believe the universe couldn't have created itself? Are you a professor of physics?
In conclusion:
My point is taking innovation & research that provides a logical path to an answer is better than any religious answer as Religion is taking faith over logic and when one takes faith over logic, it cannot be verified, ever. (Remember the definition of faith - without proof - and remember God of the Gaps.)
If you want the conclusion in another format: Here's a video of ricky explaining it it's at about the 7:36 marker:

Keep what you THINK you know to yourselves.

My question to theists is this: Where did God come from? It seems to be a question never asked. And I'm not sure quite why that is. But if a theist can say "God made the universe" and not need any real evidence, why can't I say "The universe made itself". You guys always say "well where did THAT life come from?". In which case, why can't I ask the same about God? Where did God come from?
It's a two way street, the only difference is science gets has a great track record. Not only has religion gotten so many things wrong but its a force of evil and immorality in this world.

Now That is done I would like to divert your attention to this epic video of The Hitch explaining that you don't need god to be able to explain or witness the wonders of the universe and that with innovation and scepticism helps to propel humanity further:
Debate Round No. 2
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Brando97 1 year ago
James, I am willing to debate you on the topic of the truthfulness of Christianity. Do you accept my challenge?
Posted by Jgrepke 1 year ago
1. That is the definition of an atheist not atheism. Also, you know perfectly well what I meant, but just in case you don't, let me clarify. What I meant was that it is impossible for there to be no god. Now, let's just say that I believe that your dark matter experiment worked (I would LOVE a source), your argument only proves my point, that there has to be an intelligent being to cause a "big bang"-like occurrence. HUMANS introduced the dark matter! And even so, where is the dark matter originally coming from?

2. The argument of atheists is that what has caused humans and other species to exist is survival of the fittest. If that were true, then killing would be okay. You survived, and they didn't, but no. Morals are inert in us. Why are morals inert in us? Because a moral law giver gave them to us.

3. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind."[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Matthew 22:38-39 Are you about to tell me that loving your neighbor as yourself does not include not raping, not being cruel to children, and not committing genocide? Also I think, like most uneducated (on the topic) atheists, you misunderstand the meaning of fear as it is used by Martin Luther. Fear, in this instance means "to have a reverential awe of" ( The first three commandments are to respect and give time to your creator.

4. Christianity says nothing about the earth being a disk. Also, how are you saying that science has proven dinosaurs to have not cohabited with humans?
Posted by JamesTeranov 1 year ago
Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important. Where once it used to be able, by its total command of a worldview, to prevent the emergence of rivals, it can now only impede and retard"or try to turn back"the measurable advances that we have made.
Sometimes, true, it will artfully concede them. But this is to offer itself the choice between irrelevance and obstruction, impotence or outright reaction, and, given this choice, it is programmed to select the worse of the two.

You say there's a creator. Fine but if you claim that, you should claim it all.
By trying to adjust to the findings that it once tried so viciously to ban and repress, religion has only succeeded in restating the same questions that undermined it in earlier epochs. What kind of designer or creator is so wasteful and capricious and approximate? What kind of designer or creator is so cruel and indifferent? And"most of all"what kind of designer or creator only chooses to "reveal" himself to semi-stupefied peasants in desert regions?

Religious theories have been proven wrong over so many years. Religion said there is no other place but earth.. Scientist found evidence of other planets. Religion said The earth was a disk.. Scientist proved that wrong. Religion said sun rotated around the earth..Scientists yet again proved that wrong. Religion claims god made humans & dinosaurs and that they co-existed despite the un-refutable evidence dug up from so many archaeologist and historians over the years. Now you say god created the universe.. excuse me for thinking different after that track record. It's always 'God of the gaps' and with this always comes assumption.. 'If this happen here why could't it of happen out there'.. Fair enough.. you can say that but that's not proof nor evidence. it's a theory and compared to the research at CERN limited

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed witho
Posted by JamesTeranov 1 year ago
You are being assumptive. Assumption is not evidence.
1. You say because a $20 bill must have been created/dropped and didn't appear from nowhere. The thing is we know precisely that a factory makes them but we don't know, without any proof at all, that god created earth. None. It's a mystery to be solved and to say God did it without any research just assuming (God of the gaps) is in itself ignorance at it's finest.

"It would take a powerful, intelligent source" Again being assumptive yet in the CERN - Large HADRON collider have successfully created the exact condition of the big bang by introducing dark matter.

You say "atheism cannot be true".. this is a different topic altogether. Definition of atheism is "A person who lacks belief in a god or gods.". I lack the belief therefore I fit the definition hence it is true.

2. You talk about moral law and law givers. Morality is inert in us, morality is inert and WE as a COMMUNITY are the law givers. Everyone knows killing is immoral and to say that because god said so.. is ridiculous. And to say we are immoral without god is stupidity at it's finest.
Lets take that into consideration for a minute:
Now of the commandments, the first three are entirely about fearing the author of the audits, entirely about being terrified of someone you're enjoined to love. I don't know about you, but the idea of compulsory love has always struck me as a bit shady, especially if you're ordered to love someone who you absolutely must fear. So, the first three are: look out for me, and keep at least one day of my way or you'll be terrified full-time.
Is it too modern to notice that there is nothing[in the 10 commandments]about the protection of children from cruelty, nothing about rape, nothing about slavery, and nothing about genocide? Or is it too exactingly"in context"to notice that some of these very offenses are about to be positively recommended?
If you want to talk about morality I am here to do so.
Posted by Jgrepke 1 year ago
Firstly, to say that something can be true for one person and also true for another is completely ridiculous. If that was so then by the same means I could say that gravity is not true for me and therefore I can jump 100 feet in the air. Or a student in school could say that the fact that two plus two equals four is only true for the teacher, but is not true for him so therefore he did get question five right when he said that 2+2=7. That's not how it works. Gravity exists (is true) for all people and so is the fact that 2+2=4. If something can be true for one person and not for another then nothing can be known.

Now that I have gotten that out of the way, John 14:11 - "Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves." (That is Jesus speaking). By this verse I can state that belief in religion (by my definition) can be proven factually. Furthermore, I think that the God of the Bible has been proven based on three simple points.

1. The Cosmological Argument which states that everything in the universe has a cause. That is proven by itself. When you walk around town and see $20 on the ground do you say: "Oh, look what just appeared by itself on the sidewalk!?" Of course not! You would say something more like "Oh, look what someone dropped on the ground!" By the same token on a much larger scale, the universe cannot just come from nothing. It would take a powerful, intelligent source outside of this universe to create it. Now that we have established that atheism cannot be true, lets pop over to
2. Moral Law which states that Every law has a law giver. There is a Moral Law. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver. If you would say that killing is wrong, then there is at least some sort moral law. Basically morals have to have a cause (#1) and that cause has to be someone/something moral that has the ability to do so.

Posted by JamesTeranov 1 year ago
Ran out of characters there sorry bud my bad.
I hope this clears things up a little :)
Posted by JamesTeranov 1 year ago
You're partially right, but my core argument is still valid.
What I meant to say is "FAITH believing in something/someone without evidence."

The definition of faith/belief is: "Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof"

Religion is: "The belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers"

I believe your quarrel is not with me rather with the definitions and your interpretation.
They're are many ways in which the word 'faith' can be used. Example I have faith in, using your analogy, my favourite sports team to win because I know they are capable of winning but in this case they are mutually exclusive. As you can see from the link to the definition of faith another definition is a particular religious faith. Really depends on how you use the word

I do see where you are coming from, your point of view is if someone doesn't know entirely something and still thinks it IS, as you say in science theories, is he/she not believing in something without evidence, are they religious?
The way I see it, they aren't religious as religion is, as seen above, is a belief in a supernatural power.
I see it as the person, who you say hasn't done the proper research, it's their fault. The difference is in religion everything is said to be already known - no one questions anything. At least in science they admit that their are some questions that cannot be answered but they are looking for them. Scepticism and Innovation is the way humanity will progress.In science atleast, they have proper research, from mathematical proofs from all around the world, to proof theories and if not fully proved, all of the mathematical calculations done and small evidence, are most likely true. The recent water on mars for example. Science gets it right.
I hope this clears thing
Posted by YaHey 1 year ago
No, religion isn't believing something without evidence. That is the worst definition of anything ever. If I believe my favorite sports team will win I havent been converted. There are people who believe scientific things that haven't done the proper research to have a reasoned foundation for their belief, are they religious?
Posted by JamesTeranov 1 year ago
The definition of religion IS believing in something/someone without evidence.
Therefore this argument is over.

The real question is religion a good force for humanity?
The answer.. is.. No. Of course not. Religion is a force of evil in this world.
Posted by NoobyGurl 1 year ago
There really is no way to prove it to everyone he is real. But like it was said in the bible "faith is believing without seeing" and we must believe in him even if there is no proof.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by roun12 1 year 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 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: Pro forfeited.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture