The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

God has a 50/50 chance of existing

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 880 times Debate No: 52092
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)




Hello Debaters, and welcome to another debate about God.

Atm, this debate is impossible to accept. Leave a comment if you wish to join, and if I choose you, you will be contacted via PM.

1st round: Accepting with written claim
2nd round: Arguments
3rd round: Arguments/Rebuttals
4th round: Final Rebuttals and Conclusion

Con must prove that God's chances of existing are indeed not 50/50.

My claim is that God does indeed have a 50/50 chance of existing.

Thank you! I look forward to the different people and my opponent's statements.


This debate was not impossible to accept. However, I will accept this and will refute the claim that the chances of God existing are 50/50. I ask my opponent if we are debating about any god or a specific god
Debate Round No. 1


Since we are talking about God (also, when I say God, I mean a being that created the universe, essentially). Now, many propose that Christianity is an untrue religion, however, this is irrelevant. We are talking about God, not the beliefs that some individuals choose to follow. Sure, they pertain God ideals, but is that the only way he can exist? The answer to this is No.

So, now we look at evidence.

Is there evidence of God?

The answer: None that can be deduced as secular.

So, in the end, we have an absence of evidence. However, this is not evidence of absence, disproving the existence of one such being. The art of disproving requires evidence against anything and determining that there is no way he can exist. Yet, we can not do that with God.


He is something that we do not understand. If God were to exist, and there was evidence of it, scientists would likely be baffled by it. They would not have the faintest clue how its possible. Thus, he is something beyond our comprehension at this point in time.

His existence continues to push outside of the bounds of what we know. We know the Big Bang happened. We know that the code and true source of life is most likely abiogenesis and DNA. But, whatever we don't explain, whatever we cant explain, still can be from God. It is a theory. Just like the Quantum Fluctuations theory. It is still a theory. So is that God made the universe.

Now, since God does not have evidence for or against him, we can conclude that he either exists, or he simply does not. Thus, his chances of existing are 50/50.

I look forward to my opponent's opening argument, and I wish him the best of luck.


My opponent's claim is that because there is no evidence for it not existing, there is a 50/50 chance of god existing. If this is true, then the same can be said about unicorns, mermaids, leprechauns, and Santa Claus. You don't have evidence that goes against them. We have only failed to come up with evidence for these fairy tales. But what makes us so sure that they we can positively claim that those so called fairy tales don't exist? If we lack evidence in the universe of a god, the chances are not 50/50. At least at the moment, the chances of a god existing are lower. In order to establish a 50/50 chance, there must be some sort of understanding of it. However, we have as much of an understanding about a god as we do about unicorns. They are characters and creatures in books that we have yet to believe is true. The Bible's claims have been debunked on numerous occasions, so the bible is in no way a reason to believe in a god, nor is it a reason to believe that there is a chance of god.
If my opponent claims that there is a 50/50 chance of unicorns existing, then I may consider a concession, but as it stands, as far as I know, few people will claim unicorns have a 50/50 chance of existing.
Debate Round No. 2


I must point out that my opponent violated a rule.

"2nd round: Arguments"

That means that there are NO rebuttals until the next round.

There is evidence against Santa Claus, mermaids, leprechauns, unicorns:

Santa Claus: Earthly-bound AND wide-spread to everyone over 15 that it is a myth and does not exist.
Mermaids: We have not found a creature that is indeed half human and half a fish. And we also know that such a creature could not exist.
Leprechauns: Someone has never been to Ireland...

Also, all of my opponent's descriptions of common fairytales and comparing them to a being that is a Creator of the Universe and is also completely theoretical is an incorrect correlation to God.

Is God a fairytale?

No. He is a theoretical being that we are UNSURE of existing. With fairytales, we know they do not exist. Except Unicorns. As depicted by the picture of fossils of the creature. So my opponent must now consider concessing...

In order to determine the chances of something existing, we must determine how it functions. However, we can not know how God can function. Thus, his chances still remain neutral. AKA 50/50.

I look forward to my opponents next rebuttals. Thank you..



My opponent has pointed out my error, and I apologize for that, and will continue with this debate properly.
My opponent says that it is known that Santa does not exist. But how? How is this known? You may not be looking in the right area. It is possible that we are looking in the wrong places to look for Santa. Maybe Santa is not as we described so perfectly, but neither is anything else. We find new things out everyday about something we thought we already knew.
Mermaids: such a thing could actually have existed. If you know of the Discovery Channel's documentary on this, then you know what I am talking about. Yes, Discovery Channel did admit to faking the whole thing to trick people, but they based it all off of the aquatic ape theory. So is it impossible? Well, I am no professional so I will not say so
Leprechauns: I am talking about a 2-3 foot dwarf with orange hair that grants wishes and has pots of gold and what not
Unicorns: You have proven me wrong there, and I accept that
"with fairy tales, we know they do not exist". Well, what defines fairy tale? A story fabricated by a person. Who is to say God isn't a story fabricated by a person, or people? People did get benefits out of making up stories back then.
Is is possible that Thor or Zeus existed, even at one point? Maybe we miss interpreted the texts, and we are not looking in the right areas for such creatures
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent asks how Santa is not known to everyone as a myth. If only I had an answer for that... Gee... If only there were parents that admitted to making the whole thing up once you became of age...

Mermaids: You just claimed that the evidence provided by the Discovery Channel was false. I am not sure if I must dive into this topic any further.. Plus, they do not fit the evolutionary pattern.

Leprechauns: You mean a short lil dude with a green hat who makes your Lucky Charms? Well, I am sure you can read back to Grimm's fictitious story which was also the first time they were made.

My opponent repeated the correlation between things we know as make believe and God, which we DO NOT know as make belive. My opponent's argument is purely correlation. This is a red herring fallacy. He is desparately trying to take the debate away from the chance of God existing, but the chances of other things in existence.

A red herring fallacy is a distraction from the original topic.

Red Herring:

I urge the audience from this point on to vote Pro.



I made it clear that the documentary was faked, but it was based off of a true aquatic ape theory.
My opponent must have misunderstood what I have said. When I ask how do we know for sure X is not real, I mean us as humans all together. How do we know that it has just not been discovered versus not existing? I do not believe any god has a 50/50 chance of existing because there is evidence that would actually go against it. As far as we know, everything that exists exists with in the universe. If any god exists, then there must be a way to measure the presence of one. If any god does not exist with in the universe, then there is already evidence against it. If there is claim that says the subject in question is not measurable, then there is evidence against such a thing. Anything that is existing can be measured in some way shape or form. If we have yet to come up with a way to measure it, then we have a good hunch that it does not exist. If it is not with in the universe, even if it did exist, then we have no way of testing it, and therefore, in the eyes of ours, there is nothing that distinguishes from not existing and not being in the universe. If you can support the idea that something can be outside of the universe with a reliable source, then I will consider this debate a loss on my part. I ask that the audience to not take in to consideration my opponent's source when voting on sources, as it only mentions why what I say is wrong , which I do not believe the link suggests that entirely.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by demonlord343 2 years ago
Thank you. Btw, since the debate is done, the unicorn thing was falsified evidence :D trolllll
Posted by Ozzyhead 2 years ago
Thank you for making this debate. I enjoyed debating you sir.
Posted by MCAC 2 years ago
Posted by demonlord343 2 years ago
Oh... oops i forgot to put up the restrictions... sorry everyone!
Posted by mzhao8 2 years ago
couldn't there be a chance that there are multiple gods as opposed to just one or no gods? pro didn't specify clearly enough.
Posted by jamccartney 2 years ago
Would Con be arguing that there is not a 50/50 chance and that there is a God, or is he arguing that there is not a 50/50 chance and there is no God? Pro did not make this clear.
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
I would have accepted this as well... Oh well, god luck Ozzyhead
Posted by Ozzyhead 2 years ago
This debate is not impossible to accept. I will accept it as a true debater of such a topic
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Kreakin 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 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is correct in that the lack of evidence doesn't mean 50/50 odds. It means 0 or no opinion can be formed.Conduct to pro for rules violation, sources too as regardless of link was only one used.
Vote Placed by DarthKirones 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 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a good debate. If I were in Ozzyhead's place I would said that there could be more then one god, for all we know the Greek religion could be correct. My whole point is that there are more options then "God is real" and "God is not real"