The Instigator
Con (against)
5 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: 3/24/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 428 times Debate No: 31661
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




The burden of proof is on those who make the positive claim (pro).


first of all it is impossible to prove one or the other.
i will give some examples and if you dont mind you can give some back why he cant exist.
1.) the creation of time and the universe.
2.) "evil" and "good"
3.) absolute truth.

1.) the universe has been proven by scientist of all sorts that the universe has had a beginning. (ill post citations later)
how could it have begun? how was it created?
2.) evil and good exist. please give me examples of how it cant.
3.) absolute truth can only exist with a god, and absolute truth exist.
Debate Round No. 1


That's right. It is impossible to prove one or the other. Since the burden of proof is on YOU, you lost by admitting that.

Even if science can't prove a thing, that doesn't prove there is a God.

Proving evil and good doesn't prove there is a God.

Proving absolute truth doesn't prove there is a God.
You claim "absolute truth can only exist with a god" PROVE IT.

You already said God is impossible to prove. You have the burden of proof. I won the debate.


1.) Yes proving evil and good does show there is a god. What do you believe evil is? Is it something made up or is it real? Do you believe something can be good or bad? There has to be someone who determines what is evil and what is good.

2.) Can you be wrong about anything you know? Can you know something for sure? Are you absolutely sure there is no God?

3.) Proving God is a matter of opinion. I could give some evidence to an atheist and he could believe me and then become a deist. Therefore I proved to him God exist. Now let"s say I give the same evidence to a different atheist. He doesn"t believe me. I failed to prove he exists. Listening to everything you said it sounds like you will never believe in God no matter how much "proof" you get.

The fact that you could be wrong shows that nothing is fully proven. If something has been proven, then that means absolute truth exist.

If there is no God, then 9-11, Newtown, and the Holocaust were not bad things. They were all justified. What were they justified by? The nature of man. With no God, that is the only law.
Everything we do is justified. There is no bad or good. Life is meaningless and we are nothing more than worthless animals. Love, life, family, friends, fun, caring, etc. were all accidents. None of them mean anything.
Why are you getting offensive? What I"m saying in your mind is meaningless? But you obviously do care. There must be a reason why you care. Why is that?
Debate Round No. 2


1.) Good and Evil is a human concept. We base what is good and evil on how we ourselves like or hate things. What one person might consider evil another may consider good. There is no God that sets what good and evil are as absolutes.

2.) Nobody can prove there is no God, but my opponent has the burden of proof that there is, in fact a God. Can my opponent be wrong about "knowing" there is a God?

3.) Only opinions based on facts can be considered rational opinions. Without facts, opinions are worthless. If someone has an opinion that a God exists and it is not based on facts, then the opinion is worthless.

My opponent claims "If there is no God, then 9-11, Newtown, and the Holocaust were not bad things. They were all justified."

Those events were only justified by certain people. the 9/11 hijackers considered what they did "good" while the rescue workers trying to help, considered what they did "bad". That proves my point that there is no God that sets what good and evil are as absolutes. It's how an individual person sees it.

My opponent still has not proved that God exists.


samurai forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by samurai 3 years ago
Wasn't able to get back in time...
Posted by qopel 3 years ago
Just because somebody forfeited a round doesn't mean they forfeited the entire debate!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit. Also, spelling and grammar to Con because of Pro's lack of punctuation.