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

God cannot be disproved

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/14/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 821 times Debate No: 40535
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)




God: the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

Disprove: o prove (an assertion, claim, etc.) to be false or wrong; refute; invalidate:

Proof: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

Evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

I will be arguing in favor of an existing God. As stated by the definitions, I am looking for direct proof that there is no God. If evolution must be used, please keep arguments concise and to the point. Quotes from famous atheists and philosophers are encouraged. The same argument may not be used twice unless in the form of an answer to a previous statement.


The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that he exists. If you cannot do that then one can consider god dis proven. Can you disprove santa? Of course, and its the same kind of thing.
Debate Round No. 1


On the contrary. The burden of proof is on my opponent. Since the concept is that God cannot be disproven, it is up to my opponent to provide evidence supporting this fact.

Since you have to be everywhere to prove that God does or does not exist, it is impossible to disprove God. The fact that you accepted this debate means you disagree with the resolution, and in fact can prove that God can be disproved. If you cannot prove that God does not exist, then you should not have accepted this debate.


drzevia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Inspired forfeited this round.


drzevia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by tiger65 3 years ago
You also can't prove that he does exist;)

Just so you know I do believe in him but I make a good point. For those who argue that for something to exist you must be able to see it you are somewhat wrong. I believe that aliens and ghosts exist yet I cannot see them. So does that mean that they do not?
Posted by saadmsc2014 3 years ago
I believe in God and I agree that he cannot be disproved, but it also cannot be disproved that there is an invisible hippo in my bedroom that I can never find.
Posted by Gohan12345 3 years ago
God is real stick with it
Posted by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
Burden of proof fail for Con.
Posted by Nzrsaa 3 years ago
Con, the debate is that you cannot disprove the existence of God, and you have shifted the burden of proof and simply can't do that - the debate has nothing to do with proving the existence of God.
You then say that If you can't prove the existence of a thing, then it is considered disproven. This is absurd! I don't have absolute evidence that a certain star in the universe exists. Does that mean that it doesn't exist? Of course not!
Now the final thing you say is that you can't 'disprove santa'. Now this is just absolutely wrong, misguided and simply ignorant. Of course you can disprove Santa - we have positive evidence that there isn't anybody at the north pole, there isn't anybody flying about on Christmas Eve delivering presents. Your ignorance is elementary.
Posted by Gohan12345 3 years ago
Side of pro god is real some kid in my class said that this kid died in the hospital but came back to life how do u exspect that to happen god did that and what caused the big bang theory god did of course and who created us our moms and our great great great great great great moms and dads pros side
Posted by TrueScotsman 3 years ago
Kind of a "DOH!" on the side of Con here. The contention is "God cannot be disproved." Why would it be Pro's burden to prove God's existence in a debate that is arguing that the negation is not possible?
Posted by TheOncomingStorm 3 years ago
Well there's the shifting the burden of proof fallacy on the con side.

I mean aside from who actually has to give absolute proof, the same amount of evidence must be presented to each side. If you need 100% evidence for God, you can't just say that if 99% evidence is presented he doesn't exist. There must also be 100% evidence provided that God does not exist in order for this to be a justified search for truth. The same standards must be presented to each side otherwise it's a fallacious debate.
Posted by Numidious 3 years ago
I don't know that the premise is entirely consistent... It's one thing to say that god "cannot be disproven", it's another to say that he exists. So I don't know that you're arguing "for an existing god" so much as "against evidence that refutes an existing god".
No votes have been placed for this debate.