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

God does not 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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,372 times Debate No: 37961
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (37)
Votes (4)





This debate will be about whether god exists. I will be arguing that god does not exist. Con will negate my arguments. The winner of this debate will be the person who proves their case beyond a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, when you weight each side, one side was better supported than the other.

The first round is for acceptance of the debate format and rules. The next rounds are for back and forth debating. I made this debate 10k characters so that each debater can have a very good reference page for investigation, not so each debater could ramble for a full 10k characters.

General expectations of conduct should be followed. God, for this debate, is defined as the rational (conscious), necessarily existing, and external cause of the universe.



In The name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

I Testify that "There is no God worthy of worship, but Allah & Muhammad(PBUH) is the servent & messenger of Allah."

I accept this debate and Thank My Contender for Starting debate on such an Important Topic ... There are people to whom it does not matters that He the High Lord Exists or not.. Quran & Bible Describle those people in the following words..

"Deaf, dumb and blind of Reason! They will not return to begin their journey in the right direction..." [Baqarah 2:18]

"Seeing they see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." [Matthew 13:13]

but to a person with Ironic belif in Allah, His Prophet(PBUH) and His Message it does matters alot not only for my self but for those also who deny Allah's existence.

I liked the BOP demanded by Pro people are telling him silly but Its everyone's right to have complete and logical evidence before he changes his Basic Belief. Obviously people do not change faith daily...

I would congragulate My Friend that as being atheist he is more logical then those who blindly follow their religion... and moreover He has already testified that

"There is no God!" the second part is "But Allah" which I will Inshallah prove.

We see here Pro is not only demanding mere logical statments and theories to say that it proves God... he says He want Evidence beyond Preponderance! that means an unrefutable Proof that God does Exists... Moreover nothing will be spoke about without citing evidence and proof. and I would like to take BOP but you can share it surely!

(In next round I will build my case)

I am a Muslim, a Pretty Rational One... the intresting thing about being muslims is Islam does not only likes rational thinking but encourages it and encourages people to talk and arge for the truth!

"Invite to the Way of your Lord (i.e. Islam) with wisdom (i.e. with the Divine Inspiration and the Quran) and fair preaching, and argue with them in a way that is better. Truly, your Lord knows best who has gone astray from His Path, and He is the Best Aware of those who are guided." - (An-Nahl : 125)

I Accept the debate and will Prove the Existance of God. not with logics not with Sacred Scriptures only but with Science and Modren Technology!

I will request Instigator that we will not present any new arguments in the last round (i.e. Last round only refuatiton) because other person can not refute it...

have a nice day and Thanks for reading

My Peace & Mercy be Upon You.

I hope you see the truth and revert to it friend. and I pray you are not one of those who act dumb blind and deaf.
Debate Round No. 1



I wish to thank Con for his friendly opening statement and his devotion to rational inquiry. I hope that we'll have an engaging and informative dialogue not only for us, but for anyone reading this debate. In this debate, I will be defending two arguments which conclude that god does not exist. The first argument is an argument from Big Bang cosmology based on a paper I wrote for The second argument seeks to demonstrate that the concept of a necessarily existing being is incoherent. Let's dive right in!

The Entailment Argument

The expansion of the universe, and thus the basis of the Big Bang theory, is inferred based on equations derived from the theory of relativity. The theist who uses Big Bang cosmology to argue for the existence of god must accept these equations. Are these equations consistent with the arguments used by theists? I will demonstrate that Big Bang cosmology actually contradicts the existence of god.

half-open state of time can be thought of a line segment with a maximum value, but no minimum value.

A first state of time can be thought of as a line segment with a maximum value and a minimum value.

In the context of this argument, I use sufficient cause to refer to a condition that, when it has been actualized, will inevitably lead to something else. For example, if people are playing checkers, then there is also a board and pieces in use. [1] The act of playing checkers requires the use of a board and pieces.

P1: Every state of the universe is sufficiently caused by a previous state.

P2: If every state of the universe is sufficiently caused by a previous state, then every state of the universe has a causal explanation with reference to another state.

P3: If every state of the universe has a causal explanation with reference to another state, then there is no state of the universe that was not caused by a previous state of the universe.

P4: An external cause of the universe can only exist if there is a state of the universe that was not caused by a previous state of the universe.

C: By P3 and P4, The universe has no external cause.

C2: God does not exist.

The theory of general relativity is one of the most supported theories in science. The Hafele-Keating experiment demonstrates time dilation, which is a prediction of general relativity. The orbit of Mercury is experimental vindication of the theory of relativity’s equations. For many centuries, it was noted that the orbit of Mercury was slightly different from what Newton’s equations would predict. Instead of orbiting in a perfect ellipse like other plants, the orbit of Mercury precesses (which means it does not return to the same point after one orbit, but shifts slightly). When Einstein calculated the orbit of Mercury using the equations of general relativity, it predicted the orbit of Mercury with perfect accuracy. This is a strong indication that the theory of relativity is true.

Physicists derive equations from relativity called metric tensors (or metrics for short), which describe the geometric and causal structure of space-time. Ever since Einstein created general relativity in 1915, four physicists have derived metrics from his theory that describe the universe we live in, which are now called Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metrics. The FLRW metric describes a universe that is isotropic, homogenous, and expanding. These metrics also state that every state of time is half-open.

The reason why this is true is that FRW models of the universe are singular. This means that it has an ideal point which is never reached. According to FRW, there is no T=0 state. This is because there are no space-time coordinates where T is equal to zero. Thus, every state of time on a FRW model is half-open. [2]

If every state of time is half-open, then this creates problems for a first state of time. A first state of time has a minimum value and a maximum value. However, this contradicts the theory of relativity. The theory of relativity tells us that every state of time must have no minimum value, but a maximum value. Therefore, the theory of relativity tells us that a first state of time does not exist. Not only that, but the existence of a first state of time would actually be impossible! This diagram is useful for imagining a FRW universe.

The argument I give is consistent with standard Big Bang cosmology. The universe still had a beginning in the sense that every state of time must be less than 13.9 billion years old, the age of the universe. In algebraic terms, if T represents a state of time, then every T < 13.9 billion years ago. I think this explanation will solve any questions about how my view of the universe is compatible with standard Big Bang cosmology, which has a finitely old universe. As the Catholic physicist E.A. Milne writes, ‘’the Universe is meaningfully infinitely old because infinitely many things have happened since the beginning”. [3]

Some may argue that the initial cosmological singularity represents a beginning point. This is refuted by FRW models, which state that the singularity is merely an ideal point. However, some arguments can be made against a physical interpretation of the singularity. For example, the philosopher of physics Quentin Smith has pointed out problems with this interpretation. The singularity supposed to have infinite temperature, but it’s a zero dimensional point. Temperature relates to molecules moving around, like spreading out when heated, or getting closer together when cooled. How can temperature make any sense at a zero-dimensional point, which by definition, has no movement? [4] Dr. Craig also points out that a physical object with no duration and no physical extension hardly qualifies as a physical thing at all. [5]

The Incoherence of a Necessarily Existing Being

Theists believe that god is a maximally great and necessarily existing being. This means that god exists in all possible worlds in terms of modal logic (the logic of what is necessary, possible, contingent, etc). I will argue that the concept of such a being is incoherent.

P1: The concept of a necessary being analytically entails its own instantiation.
P2: A concept can analytically entail only another concept, and cannot be relatead in such a way to its own instance.
C: The concept of a necessary being is incoherent.

The first premise is clearly true as an analysis of what it means for a being to be necessary. A necessary being is defined as a being which exists in all possible worlds. Therefore, we can determine a priori that the concept of a necessary being entails its own instantiation.

This type of concept is incoherent. According to the English philosopher P.F. Strawson, 'Logical or analytical necessity relates solely to the connexion [sic] of concepts wiht one another. No concept can logically gurantee its own instantiation...'. Quentin Smith, professor of philosophy at West Michigan University, expands this point: 'Whether a concept is instantiated cannot be known a priori, through an analysis of the concept, but only a posteriori, through examining what lies beyond the concept.'. [6]


The theory of relativity contradicts the idea of a first cause of the universe. There is no easy way for the theist to escape this situation. One can deny the theory of relativity and a FRW model of the universe, but this entails that Big Bang cosmology is false, and that it cannot offer any support for the existence of god. The only plausible solutions are to invoke a more complex idea of gods causal relation with the universe, which will have problems being consistent with mainstream cosmology.

The philosophy of analyzing concepts also demonstrates the incoherent of a necessarily existing being. Therefore, we have two good arguments against the existence of god. I eagerly await Con's next round.



“Causation and Correlation.” 9.2 Causality. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Sept. 2013.

Halvorson, Hans, Halvorson,. “Cosmology and Theology.” Stanford University. Stanford University, 24 Oct. 2011. Web. 11 Sept. 2013.

Milne, E. A., 1948. Kinematic Relativity, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

“Does God Exist?” N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Sept. 2013.

Craig, William L., and Quentin P. Smith. Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology. N.p.: Clarendon Paperback, 1994. Print

Smith, Quentin P. "Metaphysics of Reason and the Metaphysics of Feeling." The Felt Meanings of the World: A Metaphysics of Feeling. N.p.: Purdue UP, 1986. 37+. Print.

(Internet links for some of these may be provided upon request.)



In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merfciful.

I was disappointed to see there is not a single source provided for what Pro is writing. Ofcourse I need source of all of them.

Well my arguments my cause ache to Pro, since I happen to visit his website and cited him refuting Quran's Statement about the Begining of Universe. Everyone has his way to to Prove Existance/Non-Existance of God. Chrisitians go Emotional with their relationship with Jesus(PBUH), Atheists open the books of Physics & Science and as for me The Divine Glorious Quran reveled to Holy Prophet Muhammad(PUBH) 1,500 Years ago is a living Mriacle and a proof of existance of God which satisfied my Rational Thoughts. Since I am an Ironic believer of Allah & his Ultimate Message to Mankind through Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) -- The Quran, I would like to present it here as a living proof of Existance of God.

Why Quran?

There are many Scientist, Oceanologist, Archologist who have not only confirmed but have converted to Islam after reading what Quran says about science, as for now I will only Qoute what Dr. Keet Moore of says about Quran in a Video Footage( Moore is a professor emeritus in the division of anatomy, in the Faculty of Surgery, at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Moore is associate dean for Basic Medical Sciences in the university's Faculty ofMedicine, and was Chair of Anatomy from 1976 to 1984. He is a founding member of the American Association of Clinical Anatomists (AACA) and was President of the AACA between 1989 and 1991. (wiki)

"I didnt find it difficult to believe When I was told about the Quran & Scientific Facts stated in it, I think God has choosen me to explain The Quran to You and even your science colugues can do that as I can do, if they have information of embroylogy, but I believe it probably means more that I being a non-muslim tell to the world, that I believe what is recorded in the Quran is accurate accoding to Our present knowldege, and I am sencire about what I say, we didnt had this knowldege and some of this knowldege about genes and the choromosomes has only come to us in the last 10 15 years when I was a student 25 30 years ago we didnt had that knowldege which we have now and there are lots of things in the quran which i do not understand and I think it may be in another 100 years when I wont be here but if you will ask about those verse to the embryologist of that age they will tell you sure that is what it means, moreover I have seen some of my collegues who are also so impressed by what they have read in the quran and so on. and there have been a few cases who have converted"

At one place he says "Statements referring to human reproduction and development are scattered throughout the Qur'an. It is only recently that the scientific meaning of some of these verses has been appreciated fully. The long delay in interpreting these verses correctly resulted mainly from inaccurate translations and commentaries and from a lack of awareness of scientific knowledge." According to Him it was injustice to Translate Quran according to Less Knowldege of Quran

All Translations are from Links have Compatative Translations of All Translators

Establishment of My Case:

Before I continue to My Arguements I would like to say some forewords which would make it easy to understand what I am talking about.


The word use for the least unit of Quran is not "Verse" it is "Ayah"

"These are the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, revelations, etc.) of God, which We recite to you (O Muhammad) with truth. Then in which speech after God & His signs will they believe? (45:6)"(wiki)

It contains more then "6000" signs out of which more then "1000" are related to Science.

If I present you with a Device & ask you who can be the "First" person who can tell us about its machenism.

The Answer will be Its: Inventor;Creator;Manufacturer etc.


I would further like to state that I shall be talking about the "Proven Scientific Facts" not "Hypothesis & Theories"

Expanding Universe:

The first example will be more intresting for Pro then anyother person, (He knows why)

Thanks to Vesto Slipher,Alexander Friedmann, Albert Einstein & others Its now a well know fact that our Grand Universe is Expanding constantly at a steady rate! but Until the early 1920’s, it was believed that the size of the universe was fixed & not changing.(

Quran: “and it is we who have built the universe with [Our creative] power; and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it.(51:47)” (Comparative Tranlstions:

The Universe from Primery Nebula and Big Bang:
It was around 1929, Edwin Hubble and many contributing Scientist contributed and concluded by series of research that about that previously there was a Primary Nebula and which the Big Bang Occured.

Are not the disbelievers willing to consider that the whole heavenly universe and the earth were (all) joined together as one unit, and then We split them apart?” (21:30) (

(Old translators who were unaware of scientific facts[used words like "Mashed"] could not explain it according to their knowldege but today's modren translations has done justice to the Scripture!)

Such Unambiguous Description of the Origin of Universe!

Composition of the Primery Nebula:

What was The Primery Nebula composed of? According to our Today's Knowldege was it only Gases?
No! calling is gases only does not makes sense at all!
A Nebula (from Latin: "cloud") is an interstellar cloud of dust, hydrogen, helium and other ionized gases. (wiki)

Thanks to
noble Prized Steven Weinberg who in his book "The First Three Minutes" defines Nebula as:

Extended astronomical objects with a cloudlike
appearance. Some nebulae are galaxies; others are actual clouds of dust and gas within our galaxy.

I think Mr. Jeff Spelmann of DD needs to know some more physics. and He should have the Knowldege of Arabic also before posting an Artical...



"Or (the Unbelievers’ state) Is like the depths of darkness In a vast deep ocean, Overwhelmed with billow Topped by billow, Topped by (dark) clouds: Depths of darkness, one Above another: if a man Stretches out his hand, He can hardly see it! For any to whom Allah Giveth not light, there is no light!" [Al-Qur’aan 24:40]

Prof. Durga Rao is an expert in the field of Marine Geology and was a professor at King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah.Prof. Rao said that scientists have only now been able to confirm, with the help of modern equipment that there is darkness in the depths of the ocean. Humans are unable to dive unaided underwater for more than 20 to 30 meters, and cannot survive in the deep oceanic regions at a depth of more than 200 meters. This verse does not refer to all seas because not every sea can be described as having accumulated darkness layered one over another. It refers especially to a deep sea or deep ocean, as the Qur’aan says, "darkness in a vast deep ocean". This layered darkness in a deep ocean is the result of two causes:


“The Romans have been defeated in the lowest land, but after their defeat they will soon be victorious. Within three to nine years. The decision of the matter, before and after, is with God.” (Quran 30:2-4)



Quran :

"then of that fluid-drop (nutfa) We created a leech-like clot(Alaqa)" (Quran 23:14) .

Alaqa, in Arabic, has several meanings:

1. A leech that lives in ponds and sucks the blood of other creatures.

2. A thing attached or clings to something else.

3. Clotted or coagulated blood.

Dr. Professor Robert Winston:
Robert Maurice Lipson Winston, Baron Winston is a professor, medical doctor, scientist, television presenter and politician.

Listen what He Says: [Video 2]

Embryo Same Like a Leech Structure:
Intersting thing is there are many resemblance in Leech and Human Embryo.

He creates you in the bellies of your mothers, creation after creation, in threefold depths of darkness (1. the abdominal wall, 2. The Chorionic and The Amniotic Sac). Such is Allah, your Lord! Unto Him belongs the Kingdom. There is no god but He . How, then, can you sway like errant winds! (Quran 39:6)

We do not know …


"Then We placed him as a drop in a place of rest." (Quran 23:13)

“As a drop” Its interpretation would be the zygote which divides to form a blastocyst which is implanted in the uterus ("a place of rest"). This interpretation is supported by another verse in the Qur'an which states that "a human being is created from a mixed drop." The zygote forms by the union of a mixture of the sperm and the ovum ("The mixed drop").

In spite of NO REAL EVIDENCE and Proof Many People falsely allege that Muhammad (PBUH) has plagiarized from Past , from Bible and other sources but they fail to realize that:

The first Arabic codex of Bible was created in AD 867 +235 years after Muhammad(PBUH)

Muhammad only knew Arabic and Quran is in purest Arabic and only Thrice He went out of Makkah at the age of 9, 19 and 25.

He was never suspeciously hidden and always was public.

There are 100s of facts in Quran about science in Quran and there were 1000s of Unverified Theories and Myths about All the Scientific knowldege.

How can a person only choose the Correct one out of 1000s???

Does that makes sense? No!

The Probabilty that He was sucessfully able to pick and choose only Scientific facts out of 1000s of myths are less then 0.005% !!


There is no way that a Human being can speak about scientific facts with 100% accurecy.. I will ask you to recall the frist given example again...

Who can be the first person who can tell about us the Universe and Its facts so accureatly? Surly not a Man 1500 Years ago without any Advance Science!


Debate Round No. 2



Introductory note

I want to start off by noting that I did, in fact, provide sources. Unless I’m hallucinating, there are six references at the end of my opening statement. A source doesn’t stop becoming a source just because it doesn’t have a URL. (If Con disagrees, then perhaps he should share his insights with anyone who has ever cited a book). Nonetheless, I offered to provide the URL for any source that can be found on the internet, so here they are. (I referenced three books, so I don’t have links for those.)




Pulling an Apeiron (Thanks for the term, RT.)

Con has used pictures of text in order to make an argument, thereby bypassing the character limit established for this debate. The character count of his argument without pictures comes out to 9258 characters. When you add his pictures (I excluded the one that came after Wikipedia because I am not willing to type all that out), the character count comes out to a full 12,252 characters, which is 2,252 characters above the limit. I have reproduced the text of all his argument, included pictures, so that anyone can check for themselves. [1] This assuredly warrants conduct points, if not a full seven point loss.

A Critique of Con’s Argument

First of all, this debate isn’t even about whether the Quran is divinely inspired. We’re debating if god, defined as the rational, necessarily existing, and external cause of the universe, exists. It’s logically consistent to say that the Quran was divinely inspired while also denying the existence of a necessarily existing external cause of the universe. After all, Con has not stated any reasons that the properties of ‘’god’’ as stated in R1 must be possessed by the divine being that inspired the Quran. Con’s arguments won’t even get him off the ground in terms of affirming the resolution.

Con starts off his argument by stating that many scientists, oceanologists, and archeologists have converted to the Quran after reading it. This claim does not receive any citation or reference. Besides, its relevance is as clear as a sand storm in the Arabian Peninsula. Many scientists convert to many different religions after reading their respective holy books, and many scientists lose their religion. Why are we supposed to take it as special if a few scientists convert to Islam, when it happens every day with other religions?

Con admires the work of Dr. Keet Moore and his statements about the Quran. Unfortunately, his argument is a logically invalid appeal to authority. An appeal to authority is valid if and only if the authority has expertise that is 1) relevant to the subject and 2) there exists consensus among experts on the subject. [2] While Dr. Moore is clearly an expert on embryology, there is no consensus among embryologists about whether the claims in the Quran are scientific and could not have been known by people living during the time. Therefore, his argument is an invalid appeal to authority, as it fails to meet both standards.

One must also ask, ‘’What do the Muslim apologists know about embryology that the large majority of embryologists don’t?’’. I would be hard-pressed to find any discussion in an embryology journal about the scientific claims of the Quran, and most embryologists don’t believe in the Quran. If Quranic embryology was scientific, you would expect these type of things to be happening. Why aren’t embryologists jumping all over this? The fact that they don’t lowers the plausibility of Con’s argument.

Con’s descriptions of physical cosmology are extremely inaccurate. He describes the universe as steadily expanding, or in other words, it’s expanding at the same rate constantly. This is false, as the expansion of the universe is actually speeding up due to dark energy [3]. He also describes the universe as coming from a Prime Nebula. This is patently false as well. Edwin Hubble’s work had absolutely nothing to do with the existence of any prime nebula. All modern cosmological models are FRW models which state that the beginning of the universe was a mathematical abstraction called a singularity (it has no physical status). Con describes the Quran’s verses on the universe as unambiguous, but provides no reason to believe this is true. When the Quran says “AND IT IS We who have built the universe with [Our creative] power; and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it’’, what reason is there to think that it refers to the expansion of space-time? One can interpret the verse to mean that they are adding onto the creativity of their work, like a painter who keeps coming back to make their painting better. There are also many different translations of this verse, with no reason to prefer Con’s translations. These translations state nothing that would imply the expansion of the universe at all. For example, Umm Muhammad’s translation of the verse states “And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.”[4] The obvious meaning is that the power of heaven is growing every day. Why prefer your translation over the others? Furthermore, the description of the origins of the universe as from a ‘’cloud of gases’’ is extremely unscientific, as the elements that make up gases exist after the universe, not before it.

Another major problem with Con’s argument is that it fails to account for some other possibilities. For example, he has not provided any evidence that the knowledge Muhammad had was not available to a person of his time. That alone makes his argument a non-starter. For example, the description of ‘’sperm and ovum’’ was already known to Aristotle during the Hellenistic era [5]. The book of Genesis, which predates the Quran by thousands of years, says “And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground.” Clearly people during this time knew about how semen was involved in reproduction. [6] It is very plausible that these ideas reached the Arabian peninsula through diffusion. The Seleucid and Parthian empires, successor empires to Alexander of Macedon’s empire, all touched on the Arabian peninsula. Therefore, Greek ideas from people like Aristotle could have easily reached the Arabian peninsula by time the Quran was written. He has also not disproved the possibility that some parts of the Quran were simply right by accident. Many creation myths involve the universe coming into being, which modern cosmology certainly agrees with. However, they were simply guessing. There was no divine revelation or reason for it. Nobody says that ancient creation myths are true because they said some things consistent with cosmology, so why do this for the Quran?

My Case

Con has completely failed to respond to any of the two arguments I presented. Remember, I gave the entailment argument, which demonstrates that god does not exist, and another argument in favor of the incoherence of a necessary being. I extend both of these arguments as they have not been touched or disputed.


Con has failed to respond to any of the arguments I have made against the existence of god. He has cheated, whether on purpose or on accident, by using pictures of text as argument. Besides this, it has been demonstrates that many Quranic descriptions of the early universe are scientifically inaccurate, such as the universe being made from gases. He has yet to provide any arguments in favor of his translation of verses rather than the other ones. Furthermore, his argument from embryology relies on invalid appeals to authority and fails to account for the current literature in embryology. Con must also show that the Quran’s verses were not 1) right by accident or 2) already known at the time. For these reasons, I think the preponderance of the evidence favors Pro at this point.





In the name of Allah Mosg Beneficent and Merciful.

May Peace be unto All who are reading the debate.

I welcome readers to My second response to Mr. Sargon's reply... I think Con lost his interest in the debate as soon as he read that His argument was not being discussed and I took my way to prove God (implies He is more intrested in getting his paper evaluated by GP rather then He gets the Proof of God).

Further more Con has to agree that he asked for "proves beyond preponderance of the evidence" and Scientific Equations are mere evidence which change as science progresses(i.e. Unreliable and Uncertain) but The words inscribed in the Glorious Holy Scripture are Never Changing Evidence of God's Existance! so I think Con should not had minded mere 2K Chracters where it comes regarding faith and beliefs.

Well I will this time surly start My argument to respond to his first reply as following:


For P 1 and 2:

No where any theist's (Muslim in this case) Holy Quran tells him that he has to agree what the scientists say (if they have done that then the earth must have been flat & Moon Light Emiting!) nor it is the part of thier faith to agree with Newton or Albert!

BECAUSE! Whatever today is beleived to be truth can be a false scientific fact of future! (Uncertian!)

Yet! when scientists discover something which goes along with Quran we will have no objection believeing in that specific portion of Science!

Now if Hypothetically a Scientist proves that not all living things are created with water as prime constituent not even a single Muslim will beleive in it!

Now coming to your statement...

"The theist who uses Big Bang cosmology to argue for the existence of god must accept these equations."

This is a wrong claim! It is not nessasry for a theist to agree with what ever a scientist says.. If Allah in Quran says that:

And have the disbelievers not seen that the whole heavenly universe and the earth were (all) joined together as one unit, and then We split them apart? And We originated (the life of) living organism (on earth) from water. (21:30)

So we/any logical person do not have any problem with this! but if someone goes against it "This Muslim Theist" has problem with that!

because tomorrow may "Big Bang" stays & some other equations are coined in! or even "Big Bang" is also thrashed out and something more closer to Quran is repersented but Its an Open Challenge to All ManKind that this "Marvlous Book" will never be found against any scientific "FACT" (not hypothesis or theory)

Hence I proclaim whether the Big Bang is accurate according to Eqaution of Relativity or not What Quran states is True (as of course a Number of Scientists consider it to be true!) According to All the Muslims because this can not be against science, as I mentioned earlier!

We as a Muslim believe in "Big Bang" or something like that as a cause of begining of universe (where Allah is Creator of Universe not a part of it) and universe as "a part of creation process" it may be misconception of many people that Theist think that it was like "Bang!" and everything came into being... hence it is logical and not against any science!

"The act of playing checkers requires the use of a board and pieces."


The "A Board & Pieces of Checekers first requrie an inventor & creator!" palying is far Ahead!

Moreover as a Logical person I and most of the muslims "Reject" this relativity which you presented because that goes against even the Existance of God Himself (As I told Its not compulsory to accept "Big Bang" as a whole package!)

e.g. If I have to push a car & I ask my nebougiring friend to give me a hand in pushing it and he responds to me:

"I will surly give you a hand but only if someone else gives me a hand" and we goto another person and he tells the same and the chain goes till infinity if people go on stating this but the car will rot but no one will push it!"

Similarly there has to be an External Cause of the Universe to Put end to this chain!

But! if you put end to this before God then bulks of the things do not make sense! but if you accept the Existance of God Who is All Powering and All Knowing then a thousand more big bangs are not a problem for HIM "with/without" "Equation of Relativity!".

Hence there has to be an External cause of the Universe or you unknowingly call God "The Universe" by saying "It Existed from beginging and will stay Forever" with all its Finest Fashioned Charftmanship... which is ofcourse absurd!

I would like to qoute from a video of Chuck Missler that over a 'Billion' Experiments are done for Virtually more then a 100 years but there have not evolved a single life cell!

For Conclusion:

The concept of a necessary being is incoherent.
Firstly I hope the above response opens your mind to Muslim's set of belief.

Now let me ask a simple Question?

a. There was a person named Steve Jobs who worked day and night and after great struggle came up with iPhone.

b. In the Arabian Pensulia where lie Huge Amount of Silicon & Petroleum and suddenly a Sand Strom Occured & After (say) 3 trillion years in 2013 I happen to find an iPhone there with a USB Charger & Toolkit.

Which one is more incohernet out of These?

Obviously b!

"The Incident of being invented/created without a Creator is so much more Incoherent that even you will not believe it"

Hence Giving a Logical Proof that There is a Creator!

Now Who that Creator is ?

We have already discussed it in My Previous Arugment regarding which I would like to Clear your mind form fallacies. Inshallah!

Response to Critique of My Arguements:

Its Like 2+2=4 Mr. Con If there is something Divine like Holy Quran which is speaking about the world & Its Mechanism long before human discovries then there have to be its Divine Source!

All that can not be copied from Past Myths & Theories! (Since the Probabilty to Pick 100s of "True Facts" from Thousands of Theories is lesser 0.005%)

& I wonder if it was not clear that Allah for my argument is a Super Natural being, Creator of The Universe and He is One who is speaking in Quran!)

Con says that there is no consensus amonge Embryologists about Quran's Facts.

I think He need to Know Completely what Quran says & How many Number of Scientists have Agreed to It & have given fair portion of Thier Books & Age to Holy Quran!


"I have seen some of my collegues who are also so impressed by what they have read in the quran and so on. and there have been a few cases who have converted" Moore

Here Dr. Dr. Maurice Bucaille Radily Accepts that Quran is Divine as it correctly tells that Pharaho's Body was not Drowned but saved! (read full book for more information) [Material was Copy Right so had to take snapshot]


I can give a list of Scientists & Books who Qoute Quran's References and agree upon facts stated in it and have written them in thier books! (on demand)

That Defyes Con's Claim!

and Why would a Typical Christian/Atheist Scientist will go against his beliefs & will write that Quran is Divine?? Ofcourse for their sake they has to "IGNORE IT" but when spoken they "CAN NOT DENY" such as Dr. Camp Bell and many more!

I did not say that Edwin brought Prime Nebula but I generally said these were scientists who contributed Cosmology!

Nescience Arguments!!

I suggest Con to have some basic knowldege of Languages it will be very helpful for him in life.

what does translation means? Google: the process of translating words or text from one language into another.

These are word by word same translations what Quran says!

In 1980s Oxford Dictonary said Pig means: hog, Pork, boar, sow, swine, piglet etc.

and 2010's Dictonary contains "Slang to call a Police man"

Now if bible says do not eat "Pig" does that means it says do not Eat a Police Man?? That will be Absurd!!

"Statements referring to human reproduction and development are scattered throughout the Qur'an. It is only recently that the scientific meaning of some of these verses has been appreciated fully. The long delay in interpreting these verses correctly resulted mainly from inaccurate translations and commentaries and from a lack of awareness of scientific knowledge."

Previous Translators did not knew meaning of Many of Verse in Quran ( I will give complete qoutation in next argument)
Which are now translated and understood!

And There is nothing wrong to tranlslate them and You can not reject those translations because

1. Prohpet Muhammad PBUH when was in His last moments people asked How will we life if you went He told them God has not given you anything better then "Reason"

2. He said, “I have been sent with ‘Jawami-al-Kalim ‘ (the shortest expression with the widest meaning) - See more at:

If Shekspear writes something He tells This is to be Interperated This Way Who ever writes something He gives His way to Understand it Moreover Quran says:

"a time is fixed for every prophecy; you will come to know in time".[
Quran 6:67] Clearly Refering to Today's & Future Age!

and About The Qoutaition from Bible: They are talking about Semen Brother! Quran speaks about Zygot, Sperm, Fetus ! Semen can be seen with naked eye & even an insane will understand it is the cause of pregnency if its not transmitted a woman does not becomes pragnent this Man would have know soon when he would have stepped the Earth!

As for: Con must also show that the Quran’s verses were not 1) right by accident or 2) already known at the time. For these reasons, I think the preponderance of the evidence favors Pro at this point.

I shall Answer this in My Next argument since Im Out of Space!


I have in detail Refuted Con's Claims which I will further more laborate in my Upcomming Argument as He has demanded more BOP!

And Allah Knows the Best!

“This is of the tidings of the Unseen which we inspire in you (Muhammad). Neither you nor your people knew it before this” (Quran 11:49).
Debate Round No. 3



Introductory Note

Con doesn't respond to this, so I assume that the issue been settled to his satisfication.

Pulling an Apeiron

Con used pictures of text to exceed the character limit by 2k. He says that I should 'not have minded' what he did. This is absurd. Of course I'm going to mind it if my opponent cheats the character limit to get an unfair advantage! At first I wasn't going to pursue this point because it could have been an accident, but I believe that the voters should take into account the fact that rather than apologizing, Con has tried to justify his cheating.

My Case

I have to admit that I am somewhat disturbed by the methodology Con has laid out in his last round. If a scientific fact supports the Quran, then it’s readily accepted as true. If a scientific fact contradicts the Quran, then it’s a priori false. This is not the way a worldview should be constructed. The facts should be considered on their own merit. I want the audience to keep Con’s methodology in mind when it comes to discussion about science in the Quran.

The first piece of evidence for my first argument is Einstein’s general theory of relativity. Physicists derive equations from the theory of relativity called metric tensors, which describe the type of universe we live in. Using these equations, physicists develop what is called a Friedmann--Robertson-Walker metric of the universe. According to these metrics, there is no space-time coordinate corresponding to T=0. It therefore implies that every state of time is half-open, confirming the first premise. Con has not made any challenges to the logical validity of the argument, so if the first premise is more plausibly true than the negation, then the conclusion that god does not exist logically follows.

I’d also like to review the evidence for the theory of relativity in light of Con’s recent statements: ‘’The Hafele-Keating experiment demonstrates time dilation, which is a prediction of general relativity. The orbit of Mercury is experimental vindication of the theory of relativity’s equations. For many centuries, it was noted that the orbit of Mercury was slightly different from what Newton’s equations would predict. Instead of orbiting in a perfect ellipse like other plants, the orbit of Mercury precesses (which means it does not return to the same point after one orbit, but shifts slightly). When Einstein calculated the orbit of Mercury using the equations of general relativity, it predicted the orbit of Mercury with perfect accuracy. This is a strong indication that the theory of relativity is true.’’

Now, Con presents no counter to any of the evidence I have presented. Instead, he objects to this argument on the basis that it isn’t part of the Islamic religion to accept what science says. This statement is completely irrelevant to the truth of the argument. The Quran may something about not having to listen to science, but this doesn’t have anything to do with the scientific evidence that confirms the first premise as true.

Con has also taken the introduction of my article out of context and contorts it in order to attack a straw man. My introduction stated that any theist who argues for god based on Big Bang cosmology must also accept the equations that get you to Big Bang cosmology. This is trivially easy to demonstrate as true. My contention was not, as Con makes it to be, that every theist has to agree with whatever a scientist says. I won’t waste any time answering to an argument that I didn’t make.

Con also presents a manifestly circular argument. He states that he rejects my argument from relativity because it contradicts the existence of god. That’s just reasoning in circles! You can’t object to an argument against your position by simply stating your position. I may as well say that all of Con’s arguments are wrong because atheism is true if that was the case.

It’s also ridiculous for Con to reject the theory of relativity. In his opening statement under the section called ‘’Expanding universe’’, Con states that Friedmann, Einstein, and others discovered that the universe as expanding. Con fails to realize that the expansion of the universe was deduced from the equations of general relativity! His position of rejecting the theory of relativity while using Friedman’s work is both ironic and self-contradictory.

Furthermore, if Con is to reject the theory of relativity, then he has to explain all of the evidence I presented in my opening statement, from the Hafele-Keating experiment, to the orbit of Mercury, the hundreds of other proofs of Einstein’s theory which still stands today.

Con also talks about how science can be wrong in the future. I’m wondering where anyone asserted that there was absolute certainty in what science says. I’m only arguing that, given the scientific evidence, the first premise is more plausibly true than the negation. It’s a probabilistic argument, not an argument based on certainty.

I also presented a trivial example of sufficient causation: the exact of playing checkers is the sufficient cause of why there are pieces on the board. For some reason, Con considers this ‘’wrong logic’’. I am absolutely stunned that anyone would challenge this. Sufficient causation means that, once a situation is made real (goes from possible to actual), something else follow from it. Once a game of checkers is made real, the pieces on the board will follow from it. This is an entirely valid example of sufficient causation. Con rejects this for no stated reason, leaving me, and most likely other people, very confused.

Con’s final statements in regards to my argument only serve to beg the question that there has to be an external cause, or something that terminates the temporal series of events going back into the past. Con puts these forward by bare assertion alone, so I don’t feel any need to make substantial criticisms of his reasoning.

Now, let’s turn to my argument against the existence of a necessary being. Con doesn’t dispute that the concept of a necessary being analytically entails its own instantiation. Con doesn’t dispute that a concept can analytically entail only another concept, and cannot be related in such a way to its own instance. Con also doesn’t dispute the logical validity of the argument. The conclusion that ‘’The concept of a necessary being is incoherent.” therefore follows logically.

Con’s Case

In my criticism of Con’s argument, I pointed out that it really doesn’t matter to this debate if the Quran was divinely inspired or not. While that is certainly an interesting question, it is not the topic of the debate. There is no reason to think that ‘’god’’ as defined in R1 exists just because the Quran is divinely inspired. Con hasn’t said anything about this point, so I think his case loses just by way of being a red herring.

I also argued that there are no real conclusions that can be made from the fact that some scientists convert to Islam. Scientists convert to many different religions every day, and some lose their religion. Con has not answered this point.

I showed that Con’s argument about Dr. Moore is a logically invalid appeal to authority. An appeal to authority is only valid if the authority has expertise that is 1) relevant to the subject and 2) there exists consensus among experts on the subject. Con has not even attempted to demonstrate that both standards are met. All he does is say that many scientists have converted to Islam, but this falls under the second criticism I made, which has not been answered. (His quote from Dr. Maurice Bucaille has the same appeal to authority issues as his quote from Dr. Moore.)

I argued that if the Quran made statements about embryology that were not able to be known without divine revelation, then there would be a frenzy over such a thing in embryology journals. For example, embryologists would constantly comb through the Quran trying to find information about their field. Con’s response is that they ignore all the evidence because it contradicts their religion (sound familiar?). The problem with this argument is that it remains unfalsifiable, and cannot be disproven. An unfalsifiable explanation is a bad explanation.

I’ll just breeze through the problems with Quran cosmology as Con hasn’t made an effort to answer the bulk of my case. The fact that the universe is not expanding steadily, but is speeding up? Dropped. The fact that there is no model of the universe which states that it came from a prime nebula? Dropped. The fact that the description of the universe as coming from a ‘’cloud of gases’’ is unscientific? Dropped. The ambiguity of the verses Con cites? Dropped. The different translations which do not imply the same meaning as Con’s? Dropped.

I give credit to Con for trying to answer my point about different translations. His only answer is that some translations are inaccurate because they did not take into account modern day science. However, this fails to respond to my argument. In order to demonstrate that my argument was bad, he needed to show that the particular translation I brought up was subject to such inaccuracies. He failed to do such a thing.

I'll finish this section here, as I'm out of sufficient space.


I'll put it briefly and succintly: Con has dropped too many of my arguments, and too many of my criticisms, to be considered the winner of this debate.




In the name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful.

A sad situation:

Its sad like a Sales Representative Pro is trying to inspire his audience with his words and get High rank for His Product "His Paper"

as I mentioned Earlier Pro was much more interested in getting "His Paper" evaluated rather then the Existence of God, for a Truth Seeker "Existence of God" is a much more bigger concern then proving his points right and winning a debate [because "WHAT IF THERE EXISTS A GOD!"] so here he is more concerned to attract Voters then Seeking truth which defies the cause of Debate according to me and I was not Justifying anything wrong, what I was saying was for a Seeker of Truth it merely matters if he is seeking "Evidence Beyond Preponderance" what the length of argument is.

Wrong Perception:

It was a clear wrong Perception of my statement .. If you scroll up I said

"IF HYPOTHETICALLY scientist say that water is not prime constituent of water no Muslim will believe it becauseThere is no statement in Quran which is against any scientific fact (though you will find many on Internet [Debate with me if you think that is true]) so We as a Muslim Regard Quran the Highest Regard because there is not a single false statement in Quran"

I have not made any challenge against the Logic which Pro give because that is True according to Quran(though that might be not true according to hypothesis and theories) so I have no problem with that.

I dont think anyone will find it illogical to "Reject Scientific Hypothesis or Theories" because they are not proven yet! and we have +ves and -ves about that particular thing so its upto ones perception if he accepts or rejects that theory!

Pros whole argument was based on the approach that "Theist try to prove God with Big Bang Cosmology" which should have been made clear in the first round. Since He stated no context in which we will be debating the Existence of God. So He Choose Cosmology I Choose Quran. Each to Its Own? There was no binding to Prove God Only by Proving Con's Points wrong.

"and My claim that Pro is only looking for Evaluation of His Paper in the Market can be easily Justified since he has been using the same article in previous debate with someone else "

Yes I rejected that argument because Its not My cup of tea? I have my own approach to Prove God Con had His as previously told no one was abide to any rule that he has to use Big Bang Cosmology to prove his Point. so According to Me I do not consider Argument of Relativity same as you do not consider Quran for you. so we had to come to a command point where we can debate.

I stated those facts from Scientists as an Evidence that As Quran states 1500 Years ago about the Universe is what today believe! Conclusion of Both is Same! that there must have happened something like "Big Bang"

that means may be scientists have not got the right way to explain it though they are trying with the help of Eq. of Relativity and other theories but there is not discrimination that Something like "Big Bang" has happened or Not!

Hence What Quran says 1500 Years ago is same what Scientists are Trying to Prove Today! ( Though their method to prove it is correct or not (might be uncertain) on one side its the most strongly supported Model of Beginning of Universe but discoveries are not stopped there.)

Hence My Point that as Quran states that something like "Big Bang" has happened is accurate according to our Results of our Today's studies!

ASSUMPTIONS and Half Quotation:

Pro takes half of my argument and distorts it to according to his need to prove his argument true that is Truly something Unjust!

I said yes! that I also do not believe in The Series of Events going backward thts absurd !

But I also said that There has to be an end to it!
My Argument has been distorted
Its very illogical if you put the Beginning like this..

But it is very logical to put it like...



Pro Claims that I did not said anything about "There is no reason to think that ‘’god’’ as defined in R1 exists due to Quran"

I think I presented the Case Very Clearly..

  • Holy Quran is the Book of Allah and There is not a Single Statement which is Against Science.
  • There are Signs which speak about The Scientific facts. not one not two but Hundreds!


How can Muhammad (PBUH) can only Pick and Choose Only The Correct Statements out of Hundreds of Myths?

How can Muhammad (PBUH) be so sure that:
  • Moon's Light is reflected light? (10:5)
  • All Heavenly Bodies Rotate and Revolve (21:33)
  • There is Ozone as a Protective Layer Above us? (21:32)
  • When Sweet Water Body Mixes with Salty There is a Barrier between them (25:53) (Google:Estuary)
  • About Detailed Description of Water Cycle in Whole Quran? (
  • That Embryo is Leech-Like ? as Dr. Winston Tells us?(23:14)(Video)
  • That There are 3 layers major layers in which fetus lies? (39:6)
  • That Finger Prints are Unique to Everyone? (75:4)
Here I have stated 8 Scientific Statements from Quran

out of thousands of statements lets take 10 only!

The Possibility of All 10 the statements:
  • to be guess work/poetic statement(which came out true)
  • to be a luckily copied myth (which came out true today)
only doing this simple math we get the Possibility this to be guess work or luckily copied from past which came out to be truth is

0.2% for only 10 statements and There are 100s! in Quran




100s OF TIME!








And the Rule while we Study Comparative Religions is If "Any of the meaning of The Scripture Gives Sense! is Reasonable! is Logical! is not out of context that is considered the right translation" ! Agreed by whole world.

there is no much space left to say more.

moreover I will not present any new arguments since Pro will not be there to answer them. I will look forward from him to debate about Islam and Quran and Science and we can come to a better conclusion.

As for Now. Pro with his self assumption wrote down that I have not replied to his arguments where as I separately answered almost 90% of the argument its space which limits me to speak.


Quran is the Book of God. A way of Life for those who seek truth and peace! Its not a book of science but a book of signs for those who seek truth you will nor find detailed description of the scientific facts and E=MC^2

but there are sufficient signs
to Prove its validity! and Prove that This is The True Word of God. Allah has written down things in it which 1500 years ago no one could have written!

There have been 100s of Scriptures on Earth but when you combine them with Today's Science They fail to pass the test of truth! Like Bible and Buddha's teaching and Hindu Scriptures but when to bring them together to pass the test of Time and meet today's age of Science they Fail a big time!

Allah says in Quran:"Do they not ponder the Quran! If it were revealed from a source other than Allah, they would have found it abounding in discrepancies and variations."

The Purpose of Quran is Guidance for All

It Indeed, We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth so you may judge between the people by that which God has shown you. And do not be an advocate for the deceitful. And seek forgiveness of God. Indeed, God is ever Forgiving and Merciful.

to Make rational human being believe that this is a Rational Book It contains the facts of science which are proven true Today!

I pray for the readers that they may seek the truth.

If anyone would like to debate regarding it to Me He is Most welcomed

in This debate the approach of Pro was different then mine so I could not elaborate My claims completely!

"Say, If God had so wished, I would not have recited it to you, nor would He have brought it to your knowledge. Indeed, I have spent a whole lifetime among you before it came to me. How can you not use your reason?" (10:16)

Muhammad PBUH was known famous in his ENEMIES as *THE TRUSTWORTHY* He never ever lied to anyone in his whole life.

not a "SINGLE LIE" is reported from This Great Man of History.

How can He make up such false claims? I am working on psychological any al sis of Islamic History I would look forward to put a debate on it if Pro or anyone else Wills.

Surely, in the creation of the heavens and the earth, in the alternation of the night and the day, in the sailing of the ships through the ocean for the profit of mankind, in the rain which Allah sends down from the skies, with which He revives the earth after its death and spreads in it all kinds of animals, in the change of the winds and the clouds between the sky and the earth that are made subservient, there are signs for rational people. (2:282)
Debate Round No. 4
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GWL-CPA 2 years ago
What a joke. Another debate about God by Sargon.

I guess that is one way to keep your ranking up. It appears that is an Magic use God debates to increase their rankings. Same arguments and evidence each time. Too funny, but typical at DDO.

And, look, the same voters for Sargon over and over again. What a dishonest sham.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Surprised to see a comment argument, since if con wanted anyone to vote for him, he would not have cheated; therefore logically he wanted all votes to be against him. So why even debate? (yes the previous statement is a fallacy)

Expanded vote...
CONDUCT (pro): Blatant cheating and plagiarism by con.
S&G (pro): Given to pro for no weird caps and font size errors (that or there's an imaginary third person named My Friend), writing his own argument content, and generally being legible.
ARGUMENTS (pro): See conduct. At best the cheating rounds are discounted leaving behind vague rants.
SOURCES (pro): Plagiarism is a form of conduct violation which hits sources as well (IMO), as at best it's a huge citation error. Failing in this the missing source numbers (you know, the ones from the screenshots which were on those websites) further undermine his case.
Posted by LoopsEye 3 years ago
This is stupid ppl I can write down names & page no. of 10 books who ill be having that book with him? Will you have those books which I have with me?

If u are debating online the Source should also be online

anyone can type "Ricki Johnson, The Science of The Scripture, pg. 40" who is going to order book on Amazon & get it shipped & check whether you are lying or not? It Doesnt Makes sense!

Thats why I asked Links!

If He would have been debating offline he would have brought books its online and Source also should be online! otherwise I would have proven 100s of things from the books I have!
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Yes we're aware you cited scientists who were involved in the creation of certain theories and sargon cited the same exact scientists. Furthermore, you have not actually provided a proper criticism of my work. You completely misunderstood my article criticizing me for something I wasn't even going after. It'd be like a theist criticizing Sargon's argument because "begins to exist" isn't equivocated in the Kalam Cosmological argument.
Posted by LoopsEye 3 years ago
Nevertheless It would have been Alien to Expect a Vote from the one whose blunder I criticised
Posted by LoopsEye 3 years ago
why people fail to realize I was just refering to the scientists who were involved in Cosmo theories and trying to explain the universe???
Alexander Alexandrovich Friedmann He is best known for his pioneering theory that the universe was expanding, governed by a set of equations he developed now known as the Friedmann equations.

In cosmology, the cosmological constant (usually denoted by the Greek capital letter lambda: \3;) is the value of the energy density of the vacuum of space. It was introduced by Albert Einstein as an addition to his theory of general relativity to "hold back gravity" and achieve a static universe, which was the accepted view at the time

and other... i just said that these people gave ignition to the Field whats wrong with that?
Posted by LoopsEye 3 years ago
I thank Pro for this debate . I look forward for any further debate if he wants.
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
"Scientific Equations are mere evidence which change as science progresses(i.e. Unreliable and Uncertain) but The words inscribed in the Glorious Holy Scripture are Never Changing Evidence of God's Existance!" -Con

But your case was all based on the Qur'an being scientifically accurate.....
Posted by LoopsEye 3 years ago
People! I hope you wont mind the spelling mistakes because I am Out of Country & at Some Organization Projects in Sri Lanka I was typing fastly and at last passed it thru Spelling Check but After corrections spellings were not replaced....................

I hope the Context is more important then spellings
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
" I don't know which person's topic U were refuting but I m very sure that he was speaking right but u have misunderstood what he was saying."

How? I quoted their text and linked to them in the article. How are you sure that I misunderstood him when you don't even know which topic I was refuting?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by makhdoom5 2 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 Checkmark1 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:00 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct to con coz the violation of limit. but ment and source to con coz the quran is best book as regard to evidence. well its headache. con cited about embryology which present science cant refute. nothing is refutable in quran. and about the existance of GOD. from the book of GOD which is written 1400 years ago. that latest information which is only possible is perfect evidence of GOD he exist and inspire the the truth about things which are created by him. we cannot take lightly to this valid and slpended argument. con said the debate is about GOD not Quran. this is against the debate. who is he to decide which way the opponent tackle the debate. he is suppose to use whatever way he wants to make us voter convince. which he did nicely. and the conduct point is obvious for that reason that he did not follow minor rule.
Vote Placed by calculatedr1sk 3 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither of the main arguments used by Pro were ever really addressed by Con, while Pro did show Con's entire case to be an irrelevant red herring. Con repeatedly accused Pro of being preoccupied with trying to promote an article he wrote rather than finding truth, which is strange because it was Con that kept drawing our attention to the works done by Pro rather than the other way around. S&G for Pro, as Con had many mistakes and used strange hard to read fonts. As mentioned by others, Con plagerized and cheated the character limit, and so sources do also go to Pro.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: (UPDATE: full reasoning for each point is in comment section) Massive character count violation by con, thus in effect by his own request all points to pro! ... And pro, I hallucinated too imaging you had sources, but they were not in the Qur'an, so by con's 'flawless' reasoning they must not exist.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 3 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro for Apeiroing twice. Pro clearly stated there would be a 10K limit. Con never offered a response Pro's argument from entailment until the third round. His response to it was circular "I don't have to accept it because it's not in the Qur'an". He also tries to use Einstien's and Friedmann's discoveries to prove the Qur'an, which is contradictory. Pro also pointed out to reject it would be to reject hard evidence, which Con had no response to. Con's last round on this essentially repeated his circular logic. Stating he thinks it's not logical to think the universe had no creator. But this IS the debate, Con had to demonstrate this. Con's argument never proved the God defined in R1, a necessarily existing being. Thus his arguments are irrelevant without going any further. If we go further we see his arguments flawed. He twists science claiming the universe began with a nebula. Which is impossible. And he uses invalid appeals to authority. Clearly, arguments go to Pro.