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

Existence of God

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: 1/18/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,106 times Debate No: 44200
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)




God doesn't exist...
The idea most likely arose from people who ran churches in the Middle Ages who wanted power and money, and they used a completely unsupported false being called "God" to act as a panacea for all the mysteries of the universe. Anyone who opposes this argument, feel free to accept the challenge and provide your reasons


The existence of God is definitely true. No person in the world can describe Him/Her/It because we have not seen the higher power. We are like blind men and women trying to describe an elephant. One may feel the leg and say that there is no animal here. Another may grab the trunk and say in fear that it is a snake. Yet another may touch the body and say that it is just a wall. A fourth walks up and feels the horns and says that it is a unicorn. The only way they would know that the elephant is an elephant is if they were a seeing person. This seeing person represents a person in the afterlife. We can finally without and doubt tell what God is, whether that is a person, being, or nothing. The point in a higher power is to try and make us better people. If we miss the point and fight over it, then we have failed. We must live our lives good and hope then that we will be rewarded, just as the blind men were when they could finally see.
Debate Round No. 1


Can I claim that Greek gods exist as well? What about the gods from other religions? What I'd like to know is what BASIS a person has for attaching "god" to the unknown. If religions can't even give a reason why their belief is better than another, then its all worthless.
Also, explain to me what you think of evolution. Some religious people think that God created humans, in SPITE of countless hours of effort and research by REAL scientists proving that our DNA is similar to other primates, and that any "missing links" are consistently being found, disproving their arguments more and more.
Finally, why doesn't god show himself? Or, at least, give a single hint of evidence that he exists? If I say, think, or want a chair to fly across the room to prove his existence, IT DOESN'T HAPPEN! Any report of direct evidence from God is sketchy, unreliable, and was most likely made up for attention.
Unlike the blind men, we don't have a piece of the God to hold. You should not compare us to blind men each holding a different piece of the elephant, you should compare us to blind men speculating about the creatures of the Earth.


If you haven't noticed, all religions lead to a higher being. All religions explain it differently. We shall never know until we die and then we will know. Religion is not supposed to be for correctness and if any religion does claim it to be, then they are missing the purpose of living a full and meaningful life. As for evolution, it is an explanation of HOW and not WHY. We know how so many things work in the universe yet we don't know WHY. Science is the explanation of HOW but religion and beliefs are the possible explanation of WHY. By saying all religions are wrong and science is correct is ignorant. Just as religion changes over the years, so does science. Many principals we see in science form the past, we laugh at. At one time we thought the world was flat. Now we know for certain that the planet is round. We don't know why it is round, but we do know it is. The same idea is in beliefs. We know something had to start this whole universe and life, but we don't know why. Looking in a hopeful and positive view is the point of humanity and religion. If we continue to fight over things and continue to be negative, then we are missing the point of life as a whole. We should work together and be positive and try to change our world.
Debate Round No. 2


Yes, all religions lead to a higher being. Yet, their traditions, customs, way of life, are all different. This has only caused the deaths of millions of people in the world, a fight over small things like that.
In addition, what you said about science providing the "How" and religion "Why" is false and baseless. Religion "answers" HOW the Earth was created, HOW the universe started, and HOW other things happened. I could say the opposite for science. Science provides WHY evolution happens as well as HOW. (WHY, as in, the cell makes a beneficial mistake in the DNA, which gets passed down to ancestors, and eventually becomes evolution). Either way, what religion says about WHY or HOW is complete speculation, almost pulled completely at random. This is why there are different religions saying different things, because ANYTHING any of them say can be equally correct! In this way, none of the religions that base their "teachings" off old books written in a MAN MADE language, or on MAN MADE material, or using MAN MADE knowledge are completely false.
How is saying "all religions are wrong and science is correct" ignorant? Science is the DEFINITION of correct. The only way to say anything is 'correct' is to prove it scientifically. If you saw a person run, it is proved by the fact that you SAW it run. You can prove this to a higher extent by asking other people if they saw that person run, and even asking the person who ran if they ran.
Religion, while I can't say for sure it is wrong, there is a 99.9 percent chance it is... There are possibly MILLIONS of explanations of how the Earth was made, or how the universe started, and people picked the idea that a "god" completely unknown to them "made" the Earth using... his hands? Magic?
The difference between thinking the world is flat a long time ago and thinking whatever we think nowadays that may be proved incorrect in the future is that previously, there were no scientific claims, just estimates. Now that we have circumnavigated the globe many times over, reviewed photos from outer space rovers, and sent humans into space to see the shape of the Earth with their OWN EYES, it is clear and MUCH closer to being correct than the Earth is round than flat.

Finally, I'd like to state my overall opinion on religion and its effect on today's world.
I honestly am disappointed in how people are constantly being spoon-fed the words of some long dead man who had no idea what he was talking about, at least once a week. I've personally argued with some people who were so deep into religious thought that they had trouble believing animals similar to monkeys were our ancestors. They COMPLETELY neglected science, as well as the all the studies and proven facts, and chose to put their "faith" into a book. It is really disturbing to know that religious people have likely NEVER doubted the existence of a god, or had their own individual thoughts on religion that weren't influenced by what some pope told them.

I feel like the only man in the cave who has gone outside and seen the light. The answer is clear and obvious. The only true point(s) my opponent has provided is that "we shouldn't be negative, or we are missing the point of life", or that "we should lives our as good people and hope to be rewarded". The other things they have said have already been disputed. Tell me, then, why is the world full of horrible people? Everyone forgets about being "nice" or "kind" and just acts on impulse their whole life.

Also, I have some questions for you, if you still think religion is superior to atheism.
Who/What made god? In other words, how was he (assuming such a being has a gender) created? And please, don't say "he made himself." That's simply BS. It doesn't make any more sense than saying the Earth created itself.

Why would god have a son(Jesus, or whoever else is given that position)? Does he need to reproduce? I think it's assumed that he has an infinite lifespan, and therefore doesn't need to have offspring.

Why does god stand by on the completely atrocious events in history? For example, why were millions of very religious Jews persecuted in the Holocaust? Why did god allow the killing of Native Americans for the greedy Europeans?

To my opponent, I apologize if I came off strongly or insulting, I just feel very passionate about this topic. Also, thank you for debating with me on this subject.

One last note: Think about all the effort that has been put into religious affairs. There have easily been 10s of BILLIONS of prayers said in the history of the world. What if it all came to nothing? What if?
Yes, there is no perfect answer for the things we don't know. Yes, atheism has its flaws as well as other religions. But, fact is, religious beliefs are very vague, and easy to attach to an unknown phenomenon. That is probably why it is so accepted by people, its an "easy way out" of the hard to answer questions. However, in the coming centuries, we will have the answers.


You bring up the fact of the Native Americans and Jews. I myself am both. My father is Native American and my mother is Jewish. God gave us all free will. We choose each day to use it, whether it is choosing a food or a route to work. God allows us to do this. As with all things, free will can be abused. You can abuse it by taking others' free will away or by taking someone's life for example. God gives us the power to do as we choose. No matter your religion or faith, we all are here in this universe together. We must make decisions on what to do and not do.

To say that God does not exist plainly on the fact of no evidence is in fact a theory. Science has many many theories which people believe. Gravity, for instance, is what almost everyone believes. We know how it works but do we know why? Same with God, we know he gives us free will but do we know why? Do we know why he doesn't step in? No, but we do know he isn't. The same as two friends getting into an argument, a parent won't step in because the two friends are the only ones who can fix the problem. We have many problems on Earth and God allows us to change them. It would be very easy for him to come down and say, "Hey", but he doesn't. He wants us to faith that there is something better on and also to give us the ability to change the world around us. He tests us just as a teacher does his/her students. Each student then tries their best and hopes for a good grade. We must make changes in this world so that it is a better place. This is a merit above all others and it is what God hopes for. If we can only work together like the students do so they can do better on their test.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dmussi12 4 years ago
The standard assumption is that there is a possibility that a god exists Because a god would not exist in the observable universe as a measurable entity, it doesn't conform to 'normal' rules of science that apply only within our universe. The true BOP should rest on whoever tries to prove one side or the other.
Posted by skyninja 4 years ago
I meant that it shouldn't be that I have to prove it doesn't exist, that should not be the standard assumption.
Believers have to PROVE he exists. I say he doesn't exist, because in no way has he ever showed himself, or been seen, or scientifically guaranteed.
EVERY book, belief, or idea on god is...
a guess.
a speculation.
a thought.
a possibility.
a poorly drawn up explanation for the unexplained.

Think of the world a 1000 years ago. What did we know in terms of scientific knowledge? Not much. There were so many things that have been explained in the last millenium, that most of the things one would attest to being a god's doing back then would make one seem crazy nowadays. All you need to do is wait 1000 years and religion will be obselete. Pretty much everything that ever will be explained will be explained in the next millenium. Why would one say 'god created the earth', when, in the future, everyone will know? With 99.9 percent accuracy?
Posted by DudeStop 4 years ago
I don't have any evidence, other than that we have never sighted one of them.

Now could you please answer the question, what's is your evidence that god doesn't exist? If you're going to make a claim that god exist, you best have some evidence to support that.

At best, atheists could probably be a six on the Dawkins scale. There is no known evidence that completely refutes god.
Posted by skyninja 4 years ago
It's not evidence that god doesn't exist, it's evidence that god DOES exist.
The standard for proving things you can't see, touch, hear, smell, or taste, or prove via other scientific method, is proving that it is there, not that it ISN'T there.
Let me ask you, what evidence do you have that invisible aliens aren't flying around the Earth in pink spaceships ready to douse us with a gigantic bucket of peanuts?
Posted by DudeStop 4 years ago
Ok but what evidence do you have of god not existing?
Posted by skyninja 4 years ago
My arguments are mainly disproving other people's it could be both a position and an argument.
Definition of god: A being with the power to create, take away, and bend known laws of the universe, and is not provable by any scientific method
Posted by DudeStop 4 years ago
Definitions please?
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
Is your round 1 statement meant to be your argument for the non-existence of God? Or is it just a summary of your position?
Posted by Kreakin 4 years ago
Please state a resolution.
Posted by skyninja 4 years ago
"pro" has to give strong reasons that god could exist, NOT just using it as a filler for what science has not discovered yet.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by cbcullen84 4 years 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's continuous condescending attitude throughout the debate was uncalled for, Pro maintained composure despite it, conduct to Pro. Con thoroughly unleashed the fury with the caps-lock, however the English language is governed by grammar which allows for no such thing, S&G to Pro. Neither side presented much of an argument...surprising, but Con never seems to address any burden of proof throughout the debate. Con's main form of argument consists of asking a question and then answering it with all capital letters and plenty of exclamation points as if to really drive it home. Convincing arguments to Pro for providing logical deduction in most of his arguments.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 4 years 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's case was barely developed and he only really came up with arguments in the last round when you are supposed to have already laid out all your arguments, while Pro just offered baseless assertions. Con's ranting tone and claims that he feels like "the only person who has gone out and seen the light" were unnecessarily condescending: Conduct to Pro.