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

Evolution is proven fact. The god of the bible cannot be proved.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/13/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 561 times Debate No: 103530
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Evolution is proven fact
Antibiotic resistant microbes is 100% confirmation and certification and proven fact that evolution is taking place right here in the here and the now. Antibiotic resistant microbes are evolving every single second of every single day to become more resistant to antibiotics.

The so what nothingness god of the bible (thankfully) is not proven fact

No matter which language you speak god is NOT proven fact.

1. My opponent cannot win the evolution argument in which was just listed. I will list another point to evolution that is also irrifutable in round 2 with a video. So only religion is left to argue.

2. Why should this god be believed in when he is knowingly evil and thus creates evil, hates children, creates genocides, creates wars, bloodshed, has freely admitted to having anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, jealousy, in other words is completely immoral?
3. Prove god according to the bible exists.



I would like to thank backwardsedan for this debate. I hope that this will be both fun and enlightening.
As my opponent has already pointed out, we will not be debating on the issue of evolution, so there is even no need for it to be referenced for the remainder of the debate.
As well as this, since my opponent has not provided a format, I will take the time to do so. It is as follows:

Round 1: Acceptance

Round 2: Opening statements

Round 3: Rebuttals

Round 4: Defense of statements and closing argument
Now, onto the burden of proof. The burden of proof is laid upon both me and my opponent. While I may have the majority of the burden, he also will have to backup his claims about the evil of God.

1. Why is there evil in the first place?
2. Why does God allow evil?
3. Does God have a right to be "angry"?
Again, I look forward to this debate, and may the best man win!
Debate Round No. 1


Seasoned beatings. I mean greetings. How are you drooling today? I mean doing today. Sorry about that. I always seem to stumble over my subtext. Will you never forgive me? I know hit me with a brick chipyard! Hmmmmmmm now let's see what do we have here?

Your’re right there is no need for the debate on evolution, so the proof for god is automatically false right there. That’s why I posted it. Be that as it may, let’s have some fun since you took the stance that you did.

By the way I did not provide a format, because that is my style, and no I will not take your format because this is my debate, not yours. K? In other words, what is going to happen, is just going to happen. Or better yet is tongue in cheek. Or another description is go with the flow. Oh and please knock it off with the ---------------------------- its rather annoying. I get the point, and so do others reading this debate.

No the burden of proof for you to prove your god is always upon you. No exceptions. None. Until god waves his rosey red flag, he's a forgery. How can you prove something that is unproved and something that is unknown and something that has never been seen? What do you look for to prove this unknown commodity of non existence? Um no. Sorry. The burden of proof is always upon those who claim "let there be light" or "let the truth be known" because it is they that makes those claims. And we sit around and laugh with glee and the mint cookies on the shelves. There’s absolutely no evidence for god. None. There’s no tests that can prove this so-called god. None. So how do you even know god exists? Through faith? What? What kind of god, especially the god according to the bible with his truly bloated superior ego complex would ever NOT show himself and present evidence instead of having his so-called creation of man to rely on faith? Also if this god is god, he would not rely on faith and he could simply come on down here and---talk---to---us and the bible which is in TEXT form, in which no god would EVER use, the worst form of communication possible, with copies upon copies and translations upon translations, with no updates in at least 2,000 years, and no possible way to trace it back to the original, so EVERYBODY misinterprets this so-called holy book, no exceptions, none, so this bible would be and is a useless pile of scrapping without proof of anything. If god is god he can simply come on down here and talk to us rather than using faith or text. That’s evidence in which there is none to be proved. So until this so called god presents any kind of evidence, he’s a sham, a fake and a forgery.

1. Why is there evil in the first place? Because your god created it in which there was absolutely no need, requirement nor a necessity for it.

2. Why does God allow evil? Because he’s a dick and loves hate and violence that goes along with it.

3. Does God have a right to be "angry"? If he’s a god, in which you cannot even prove he exists, and since he’s a god, then that answer is a simpleton “no” absolutely 100% positively not in no way, not ever. That would not only show that he is NOT omnipotent, but imperfect as well, thus NOT a god.


Let's see if you can dig yourself out of this one because evil, hate, violence, none of it is a requirement, a necessity, nor a need and that's a proven in many societies.



Again, I would like to thank backwardsedan for accepting my challenge and for his use of creative language in the beginning of his argument. Now, as he kindly pointed out in end of his third paragraph, I will get to the point.

My opponent says that God cannot be proven, and he clarifies this in his fourth paragraph, stating "Until god waves his rosey red flag, he's a forgery. How can you prove something that is unproved and something that is unknown and something that has never been seen?" So, to summarize, God is not to be believed in because there is no DIRECT EVIDENCE of him. But, there is also no direct evidence of his NON-EXISTANCE, and because of this, we cannot disprove him. Therefore, I can just as well say, "Until God waves his pale white flag, he's real. How can you disprove something that is unproved and something that is unknown and something that has never been seen?" Just because something is unproved does not mean it should be dismissed. For instance, take the notorious Casey Anthony trial. After 33 days of court deliberation and rock-hard evidence, the jury came back with a verdict of not guilty on the charges of first-degree murder [1]. Does this mean that she is innocent? No, it doesn"t. In fact, after the verdict was delivered, "USA Today" conducted a poll and reported that about 2/3 of Americans believed she was guilty of killing her three-year-old daughter [2].

Now, as my opponent has previously stated, there will be no official format, so I will, "Go with the flow". As well, my opponent has not delivered any evidence of God"s non-existence. I am a Christian, and I believe in the Big Bang (in fact, it was a Catholic priest named Georges Lema"tre"that first proposed the theory [3]). Now, backwardsedan made it clear that he will not believe anything he cannot see, as stated, "How can you prove something that is unproved and something that is unknown and something that has never been seen?" Now, I call him to the stand to answer my cross-examination, "Has he or anyone ever seen the Big Bang?" The obvious answer is no. Now, he has a dilemma. If he has never seen the Big Bang, and he has never seen God, how does he choose which is believe? He will probably agree with the one that has the most evidence. Now, I will take the time to point out my evidence.

As I previously stated, there is no DIRECT EVIDENCE God"s existence. What we do have though, is what is known as CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. Consider it like this. Let"s say a witness is on the stand for witnessing a murder, and they say they saw a man fire a gun and shoot a man. Now, if the witness and their testimony can be trusted, it is known as DIRECT EVIDENCE. Let"s change the scenario a bit. Suppose instead of seeing the gun fire and the man fall, they were in their house, HEARD the gun fire, and heard a car speeding away. They go outside to check, and then see the man"s body on the ground. This would not be direct evidence, because they did not directly see the crime, but it is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, because we can reasonably use the evidence to lean toward someone was shot and killed. For a more thorough explanation, please refer to this link [4]. Circumstantial evidence is more commonly used for cold-cases, and that is exactly what the case for God is; It is an investigation of an unsolved mystery from the distant past with little or no forensic evidence and little to no living eyewitnesses.

For the sake of time, I will only discuss the evidence of FINE-TUNING, and I may choose to elaborate more in a future round. Both atheists and theists are burdened with the same question, "How did this all start?" For the majority of theists, a higher power created the universe. For the majority of atheists, a happy little cosmic accident. If it was an accident, it was a pretty convenient one. The theory of fine-tuning is that the universe has been specially designed to sustain life. Even Stephen Hawking, the world"s most famous scientist and atheist, has stated "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." [5] For instance, if the strength of the Big Bang had differed in its strength by 1 in 10^60 more or less, the universe would have collapsed back onto itself or have expanded too fast for stars to form. For an illustration, imagine shooting a gun from one end of the observable universe to a one-inch target on the other side, which is 20 billion light years away, and hitting it.

For the sake of time, I will leave my argument here for the time being. I will be starting my rebuttal and providing more evidence for my case in the next round. God Bless.


[5] Stephen Hawking, 1988."A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, p. 7, 125.
Debate Round No. 2


Thankfully I am smart enough to read the endings of people statements before reading anything else. Its a college trick that my professor pulled on the class in which at least half the class failed including me. But after that, obviously not me and that was 21 years ago. So when you said "god bless" then its time for me to sign off for the round because you have effectively declared war on me in which I am not going to be any part of. Also when you do that to others who do not share your ritualistic annihilation, and you cannot even prove that your god exists, and this so-called god of yours hates children for jeez sakes, then unless you rephrase your dischord, this debate is over and you lose because I do not appreciate foul language as its always, no exceptipns, none, "god blast" if anything OR nothing. Now should you choose to rephrase your superlative language with an apology that you mispoke, because if you notice I NEVER do crap like that and state what I 100% know to be true and I can prove it, whereas you can prove absolutely nothing about your non existent god, and I can prove what I know to be true for everybody else, they just don't know it... then its onto RD4. Its up to you.



I do not retract my statement of "God Bless" by expressing the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I have not declared war on you, I am merely using my right as a human being. Also, God does not hate children. I do not know where you have gotten your information, but I must say you were rather misguided.

You said that I have lost this debate, but with all due respect sir, you are not the one deciding, the reader is. If they do agree with you, though you have yet to give a piece of evidence for the existence of God, while I have only scratched the surface of my evidence, I will respect their decision. But you sir, have no right, to declare the winner. Just like you, I have "stated what I 100% know to be true and I can prove it."

So, I propose we move on past this small squabble and proceed into Round Four. If it will make you feel better, I will not say my "foul language" at the end of this round, but I do not, under any circumstances, retract my previous greeting.
Debate Round No. 3


Then we're done. Bye.



I would like to thank backwardsedan again for the chance to debate him on this subject. If he wishes, we can have an actual debate where we both are respectful towards each other, but from observing his past debates, I find that highly improbable. Thank you for your time.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
>Reported vote: Khons// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro ended the debate and did not provide and evidence to go for his side, so to say con had the better conduct and was showing valid evidence for his side.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to examine specific points made by both debaters and determine the winner based on a comparison of those points. Generalizing about what one side did is not sufficient. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter has to examine evidence from both sides, and not merely state that one side doesn"t have any while the other side does. It must be clear that the evidence presented was reliable, and not just that it existed.
Posted by backwardseden 11 months ago
@debater12332 - You are confused because you haven't done any research on Antibiotic resistant microbes which are the same things as "superbugs". So get crackin. It really bothers me when people open their maws like you, and they present nothingness and they haven't done any research on the main subject at hand. So how can they/ you know anything at all about the main subject in the first place? So naturally you are going to be confused because you do not have an intelligence nor an education on it. Now to help you out, PBS less than a few weeks ago did an update on it from their 2013 episode. Its truly terrifying.
AND and you can look up TONS of information on it by googling Antibiotic resistant microbes or better yet google "superbugs". So the question remains... why haven't you?
Posted by debater12332 11 months ago
I'm confused...people and animals adapt everyday. Why is this news? We all know microbes are becoming more resistance to antibiotics, but this is not prove Darwin's idea of evolution if that's what Pro is trying to imply.
Posted by Briannj17 11 months ago
So is this a video debate?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DNehlsen 10 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro FF