The Instigator
Anti-atheist
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ConservativePolitico
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

God exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
ConservativePolitico
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 812 times Debate No: 31706
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

Anti-atheist

Pro


Argument from contingent motion of atoms


What is the binding force of the atom? You would probably Gluons. Gluons are a made-up dream. No one has ever seen or measured them... they don't exist! It's a desperate theory to explain away truth! We know that the electrons of the atom whirl around the nucleus billions of times every millionth of a second... and that the nucleus of the atom consists of particles called neutrons and protons. Neutrons have no electrical charge and are therefore neutral --BUT-- Protons have positive charges. One law of electricity is: LIKE CHARGES REPEL EACH OTHER! Since all the protons in the nucleus are positively charged, they should repel each other and scatter into space. If gluons aren't the answer... what is?



The answer is Jesus.



ConservativePolitico

Con

The argument provided does nothing to prove the existence of God but rather in fact shows us that we do not know something in science. Lack of evidence in science does not automatically prove or disprove the existence of any god. No hard evidence was presented in a way to prove God or Jesus as God in a meaningful manner.

The universe is made up of more than half "dark matter" a material we know very little if not nothing about but this does not automatically prove God. Science does not have all of the answers.

God must be proved using logic and empirical data, not some half baked scientific claim where no evidence FOR God was made but rather a silly observation is made and then tagged with "God".

The Burden of Proof is not met, God's existence is not proven.

(This debate had 5 minute rounds)
Debate Round No. 1
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Anti-atheist 3 years ago
Anti-atheist
It's true you Muhammad lover
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
hahhaha
loll.
jesus's (PBUH) works is to circulate the electrons.
how funny.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
Anti-atheistConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: It's nearly impossible for an instigater to win a 1 round debate, since he can't reply. & Pro is a troll, I think/hope.
Vote Placed by hilton16 3 years ago
hilton16
Anti-atheistConservativePoliticoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I choose "pro" on before and after because i believe "God exist" but i choose "con" on conduct and spelling and grammar because con had better. Now "pro" didn't provide convincing arguments but "con" did but in a way "con" did not. because the argument doesn't provide convincing arguments that "God doesn't exist" but rather debate on the mere fact of science. it doesn't always have to do with science. You should have talk about other things that could or not prove the existance of God. And none of yall have relable sources so its a tie.
Vote Placed by Pennington 3 years ago
Pennington
Anti-atheistConservativePoliticoTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed that Pro's argument does not prove that God exist.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
Anti-atheistConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Easy vote, Con's larguments stood because they could not be refuted.
Vote Placed by Xerge 3 years ago
Xerge
Anti-atheistConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to show evidence that God was the binding force of atoms. Con stated that even though we do not know something in science does not mean God exist. The resolution was therefore negated.