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

God exists.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 590 times Debate No: 92460
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




The resolution is that God exists. In my first post, I will discuss some issues relating to definitions and then defend the burden of proof principle.

Part 1: Definitions

The resolution has two terms, "God" and "exists."

My opponent has the privilege of defining the term "God," since he is the one defending the claim that God exists. However, my opponent must not attempt to win the debate by appealing to a radically unorthodox definition. For example, he cannot define God as love, or as the universe. If my opponent attempts this, or anything like it, he forfeits the debate.

That said, my opponent may appeal to a definition of God that is different from the definition traditional Christians use. He may argue for the existence of a deistic God that does not intervene in the universe, or a God that is omnipotent and omniscient but not all loving. My point above is only to rule out a definition that a reasonable person would view as trickery, given the resolution.

The second term in the resolution is "exists," which everyone should be able to understand. Examples of things that exist are the chair I'm sitting on, the United States, Vladimir Putin, etc. The resolution simply asserts this status for God, given some sensible definition of God.

Part 2: The Burden of Proof

I argue that this debate should be evaluated according to a principle of logic called the burden of proof principle, which asserts that every claim must be supported by adequate evidence or reasoning. Conversely, if a claim isn't supported by evidence, then we must reject it.The burden of proof principle follows from the fact that we have limited time and energy to investigate a claim.

Since our resources are limited, we need to focus our efforts on the claims that are the most important and promising. If a claim is just arbitrarily asserted without any evidence or reasoning in favor of it, the rational response to it is to ignore it, go on with our business, and continue to base our reasoning and actions on the conclusions that hold up best under rational analysis.

Examples of the burden of proof principle at work are plentiful in everyday life and in science. If a used car salesman claims that a car runs well, we don't just take his word for it, we want to take the car for a drive. If a scientist makes a scientific assertion to his colleagues, he is expected to provide reasoning and evidence in its favor.

Claims that aren't supported by evidence and reasoning are disregarded.We can also see the burden of proof principle at work in our rejection of concepts like unicorns, leprechauns, and other mythical creatures. Virtually no one believes in these entities, because there is no evidence in their favor. Believing in them would be ridiculous and harmful to our lives, and spending time trying to disprove their existence would be a waste of time and energy. We just reject the claims as if they had never been put forward.

The burden of proof principle is clearly sound, then, which means that if there is no evidence or reasoning supporting the claim that God exists, we should reject the claim. I invite my opponent to put forward evidence or reasoning in support of God's existence in his Round 1 speech.


In this post, I did two things.

1. I gave my opponent the privilege of defining the term "God," within reasonable limits.

2. I defended the burden of proof principle and explained how it applies to the issue at hand.

I look forward to my opponent's attempt to address both of these issues in his response.


Did you give any instance for this case??? Till date have u experienced any superpower?
Debate Round No. 1


My opponent has neither provided a definition of God nor a case for God's existence, as I requested in Round 1. Instead, he has asked if I have "experienced any superpower," which is nonsensical. I think my debate has been accepted by a troll, unfortunately.


Ankit95 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent has forfeited this round. Vote Con!


Ankit95 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent has forfeited multiple rounds. Vote Con!


Ankit95 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by swayamprakash 2 years ago
Ya You Are right @lord_megatron
Posted by lord_megatron 2 years ago
I can take it if you switch sides
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Peepette 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO's multiple FF