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

Does God exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 468 times Debate No: 85341
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




Simple, really. Pro will be saying God exists, Con will deny the existence of God, in the limited amount of 750 characters.


Yes, with the proof being that unless God's existence is presupposed, one cannot prove anything.
Debate Round No. 1


It doesn't work that way. I cannot disprove God, the same way as you cannot disprove unicorns. If there is no evidence that something exists, then it doesn't exist until there is evidence that proves otherwise. You are the claimant, you are the one who should give evidence on the existence of God. The proof for God's nonexistence is simply there is no proof of his existence, until there is evidence that suggests otherwise.

(I'm new to this site please forgive me if I did not define or explain or something. I'm not looking for a win, but trying to anyway.)


What does not work that way?

And you claim that something does not exist unless you see evidence for its existence is not only illogical, it demonstrate you have a mental illness. indeed, Pluto existed for many years before anyone knew anything about it, demonstrating your claim is absurd.

And I did give evidence. You just did not understand it. Study up.
Debate Round No. 2


This does not work that way. You are the claimant, you are the one who should give evidence on the existence of God.

Now, for the second paragraph.
What if I told you that there is a plant that has eye-like parts that can see color and feeds on snakes? Absurd, right? You need evidence to back up what you see/know/hear/sense. That is how human minds work. If not, you'd fully trust everything, anyone. Also, please be respectful. Pluto, indeed was unknown to man and everyone didn't know of it. But in that time NOBODY claimed, 'Pluto is real!' But here, without any evidence, you sir are claiming 'God is real!'

And by your 'evidence', do you imply that I have to assume God exists to not assume God exists? If not, please clarify.


I have met my burden. See response 1. To be clear, you asking for proof makes sense only from within my worldview. If God does not exist, there is no such thing as proof. But asking for proof, you show you too believe God exists.

And it does not matter if no one claimed Pluto did or did not exist. You said if there is no proof of a thing, that thing does not exist. This is the position of the delusional.
Debate Round No. 3


Thank you for the clarification.

If God does not exist, there definitely no such thing as proof. But you giving evidence, is what you signed up for when participating in this debate. And no, I do not believe God exists, I am just asking for evidence for the sake of debate to prove me otherwise.

You have mistaken what I said. I said if there is no EVIDENCE, that thing does not exist, not proof. Before Pluto was discovered, we had already known of other planets, hence giving the possibility of Pluto's existence. That is evidence. Eventually we found unshakable evidence (seeing it in a telescope), thus PROVING its existence.

You still have given no evidence that God exists, just babbling about the possibility of his existence.


You said, "If God does not exist, there definitely no such thing as proof. " In saying this, you have conceded the debate, for by asking for proof, when proof can only exist if God exists, you are admitting He exists. I win. Debate over.
Debate Round No. 4


For the second time, I am asking for EVIDENCE. And it is your place in this debate to provide it and PROVE his existence. So far, as expected, you have given none. Because there isn't any, I presume?

It would also be appreciated if you would read the rest of what your opposition has to say, instead of reading only one sentence.

The remark was suggested by you actually, in Round 3. I just added a 'definitely'. You do realize you have confirmed your own claim that God doesn't exist?

I am still waiting for evidence, and have grown tired of your constant beating-around-the-bush.


You have the evidence. Without God you cannot proof anything. You know we can prove things. Ergo God exists.

Not only is this evidence, it is deductive proof, which is necessarily true if the premises are true. You have conceded the premises.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Jedd 9 months ago
Noted. Thanks to all for the advice! I shall incorporate those suggestions in further debates.
Posted by Sunfire315 9 months ago
Jedd, you should have drastically increased the maximum characters.
Posted by NocturnalStelal 9 months ago
When doing a debate, try to define the terms in the first round and the rules (should they not abide, they automatically lose the debate) For instance on terms, what God? What do you mean by "exist"? It could very well mean figuratively, in work, by name alone. And when you provide the definitions that you have decided to use, provide a source. Do the same with the information you derive from other sources. Just a pointer. You can look at other debates and see the formatting others use for theirs. Some of them, I could say quite a few rather, use a similar one that is more structured. As for rules, you could use a simple one like no trolling.
Posted by canis 9 months ago
Very easy...No...If you can think "he" does exist.. It is just a thought...So do not think it.
Posted by PointyDelta 9 months ago
It is impossible to do this with 750 chars. Define, or I may just get on and troll the heck out of you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 9 months 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Okay, so as much as I don't like seeing people instigate as Con and thrusting the BoP onto the contender, Pro had the BoP and didn't even come close to fulfilling it. Furthermore, he insulted his opponent, talked down to him, and refused to back up his argument for God's existence with anything more than the claim that it's self-evident. As such, I give Con both arguments and conduct.