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

God is Real

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: 4/12/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 964 times Debate No: 52327
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)




This is going to be my first time ever playing Devil's Advocate on this subject, as I am actually a very strong believer in God, though I really do believe that no argument for God really proves his existence.

Burden of Proof is on Pro; my only role in this debate is to try refuting his arguments.

Debate Rules

1) Pro will provide his opening arguments in Round 1

2) Pro will abstain from posting arguments or rebuttals in Round 4 (in order to ensure that we both have an equal number of rounds to debate)

I look forward to a fun debate :D
Good luck to Pro!



I thank my opponent for challenging me on this debate. I would like to make this short and simple. Not just for my opponent and I, but the audience as well. So, what I am going to do is make several starting points on as to why I believe G-d is real. Then I'll give a short explanation for each starting point. After this, I'll give an outline of the definitions I want to be to the point of focus.

Imagination, Faith, Creation

As everyone knows, people who believe in G-d realize we were created our G-d's likeness. This being said, all human creations (or invention/ideas) are done with this systematic process.

Of course there is plenty of examples when it comes to this systematic process.

My first example is Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity. When Einstein first came out with this idea, he first came up with his idea (imagination). He then continued to pursue his idea because of his belief in his idea (faith). After this, his mastermind equation came together to make his creation of the Theory of Relativity.

Second example is Andrew Carnegie. If anyone doesn't know about Andrew Carnegie please read these articles..

This piece of information came from

"While working for the railroad, Carnegie began making investments. He made many wise choices and found that his investments, especially those in oil, brought in substantial returns. He left the railroad in 1865 to focus on his other business interests, including the Keystone Bridge Company.

By the next decade, most of Carnegie's time was dedicated to the steel industry. His business, which became known as the Carnegie Steel Company, revolutionized steel production in the United States. Carnegie built plants around the country, using technology and methods that made manufacturing steel easier, faster and more productive. For every step of the process, he owned exactly what he needed: the raw materials, ships and railroads for transporting the goods, and even coal fields to fuel the steel furnaces."

So, in this piece of information, we can see how Andrew Carnegie comes up with ideas (imagination), maintains faith in himself and his idea, and then makes his own creation.

Like I stated before, I am trying to keep this short and simple. So, I will leave it here. In all, these examples and my claim shows Imagination, Faith, and Creation is an universal systematic process among all conscious creative minds and all of creation when it comes to humans.


First law of Thermodynamics

The first law of Thermodynamics states,"Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed." This in it's self is great evidence for G-d's existence whether you believe in him or not. This theory being accepted keeps the argument of G-d's existence open. Therefore, there is a great need of evidence to show how this theory isn't good liable evidence for the existence of G-d since he is all knowing and infinite.

Furthermore, he created as he spoke. So, since his creation is divine, then it would be above our comprehension. Or in other words, above logical reasoning.

Here is one piece of evidence for the existence of this theory..

"Binding of a cis,syn-cyclobutane pyrimidine dimer (CPD) to Escherichia coli DNA photolyase was examined as a function of temperature, enzyme oxidation state, salt, and substrate conformation using isothermal titration calorimetry. While the overall ΔG° of binding was relatively insensitive to most of the conditions examined, the enthalpic and entropic terms that make up the free energy of binding are sensitive to the conditions of the experiment. Substrate binding to DNA photolyase is generally driven by a negative change in enthalpy. Electrostatic interactions and protonation are affected by the oxidation state of the required FAD cofactor and substrate conformation. The fully reduced enzyme appears to bind approximately two additional water molecules as part of substrate binding. More significantly, the experimental change in heat capacity strongly suggests that the CPD lesion must be flipped out of the intrahelical base stacking prior to binding to the protein; the DNA repair enzyme appears to recognize a solvent-exposed CPD as part of its damage recognition mechanism."

(^ This information came from this website and author:;1Department of Chemistry, Hugel Science Center, Lafayette College, Easton, Pennsylvania 18042, USA.)


Second Law of Thermodynamics

I am going to be borrowing heavily from the argument made by David C. Pack in this case... Here is his argument in reference to the second law of thermodynamics as evidence for G-d's existence..

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics is best summarized by saying that everything moves toward disorder—or a condition known as entropy. This bears some explanation and we will consider several examples.

Remember that evolutionists teach that everything is constantly evolving into a higher and more complex order. In other words, they believe things continue to get better and better instead of worse and worse.

If water being heated on a stove is at 150 degrees Fahrenheit, and the burner is turned off, the temperature will drop instead of rise. It will move toward colder rather than hotter. If a ball is placed on a hill, it will always roll downhill and not uphill. Energy used to perform any particular task changes from usable energy to unusable in the performing of that task. It will always go from a higher energy level to a lower energy level—where less and less energy is available for use.

When applied to the universe, the second law of thermodynamics indicates that the universe is winding down—moving toward disorder or entropy—not winding up or moving toward more perfect order and structure. In short, the entire universe is winding down!

Even evolutionists admit that the theory of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are completely incompatible with each other. Consider: “Regarding the second law of thermodynamics (universally accepted scientific law which states that all things left to themselves will tend to run down) or the law of entropy, it is observed, ‘It would hardly be possible to conceive of two more completely opposite principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. As (Aldous) Huxley defined it, evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of complexity. It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true’” (Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967, p. 35).

Like a top or a yo-yo, the universe must have been “wound up.” Since the universe is constantly winding down, the second law of thermodynamics looms before us in the form of a great question: Who wound it up? The only plausible answer is God!" - David C Pack from

I am in complete agreement with this argument and would like to submit it as evidence the second law of Thermodynamics is proof of G-d's existence or at the least evidence suggesting his existence.

All this being said above, I'll leave it here for Con to rebuttal.

Worldwide Flood Evidence

As of today, there has been plenty of findings of sea creatures in places you'd never expect it. For example, high up in the Grand Canyon, Appalachian Mountains,...

Would my opponent accept to let me continue my arguments into one more round?

Debate Round No. 1


Pro has requested that I pass this round so he can give some more arguments (see comments section).


(My argument continued)

So, as I was saying, high up in the Grand Canyon, Appalachian Mountains, and Himalaya Mountains there has been much sea fossil evidence found.

Here are some sources to look at... Also, here is a statement from The author is unknown..

"Genesis 7:20 says that during the flood, all the mountains were covered with water. Clams, ammonites, and other marine fossils are found in almost all sedimentary layers, including on top of the Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, and most other mountain ranges. At the end of the flood, crust movement folded the mountains, pushing the fossil layers up to 2 miles above sea level. The catastrophic flood is the reason why the majority of marine fossil layers are found on the continents, and not in the ocean basins.

Fossil Stasis
Fossils Stasis - Bat, Crayfish, Turtle, Dragonfly, Coelacanth, Horseshoe CrabBats, crayfish, turtles, dragonflies, coelacanth, horseshoe crabs and many other fossils have been found showing no signs of evolution.

Almost all fossils, including those in the lowest layers, appear abruptly and fully formed, showing no sign of evolution. These fossils have no transitional forms, and many of them have survived almost unchanged until today. This evidence is consistent with the Bible's account of special creation and does not support the idea that one animal changes to another over long periods of time."

If someone knows who the author is please tell me...

The worldwide flood rapidly buried millions of plants and animals, creating the right conditions for fossils to form. Typically when an animal dies, it decomposes or is scattered by scavengers over time. However, the fossils found in sedimentary layers were buried instantly. Fossils such as fish eating or giving birth appear to have been frozen in time without warning. Fossilized jellyfish must have been rapidly buried because their soft bodies float and decay within hours of death. The top mile of the Earth's surface is covered with sedimentary layers full of fossils that could not have formed by a slow and gradual process."

This ^ also came from this source...

I'll leave this to be rebuttaled...



As we all know, when it comes to biblical morality, there is a clear distinction between good and evil. This being said, there is also a clear manifestation of duality in the creation of all things.

Here is are some examples of this:










Should I go on?

Also, getting back to morality.. good and evil exist whether you want it to or not. For example, there is even things atheist would see as wrong and not right (making a classification of good and evil).

A good example of this would be sexual assault. As I would believe most atheist would be against the idea or act of sexual assault. This being said, they would see sexual assault as being wrong.

Another example would be the case of theft. Most people would agree that theft is wrong and shouldn't be done.

One more example. The act of generosity is widely accepted as being right, declaring it as good.


Definitions and Conclusion

Imagination -1 the act or power of forming a mental image of something not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality

2a : creative abilityb : ability to confront and deal with a problem : resourcefulness imagination and get us out of here>c : the thinking or active mind : interest imagination>

3a : a creation of the mind; especially : an idealized or poetic creationb : fanciful or empty assumption

Faith - 1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyaltyb (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religionb b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust

3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs faith>

I was clearly using definition 2b(1), 2b(2), and 3.

Creation -
1 : the act of creating; especially :the act of bringing the world into ordered existence

2: the act of making, inventing, or producing: asa : the act of investing with a new rank or officeb : the first representation of a dramatic role

3: something that is created: as

Idea - 1 a thought, plan, or suggestion about what to do 2 an opinion or belief 3 something that you imagine or picture in your mind

Thermodynamics - a science that deals with the action of heat and related forms of energy

Duality - philosophy1 the idea or belief that everything has two opposite parts or principles

2 the quality or state of having two different or opposite parts or elements

Law - 1 the whole system or set of rules made by the government of a town, state, country, etc. 2 a particular kind of law

3 a rule made by the government of a town, state, country, etc.

Good - correct or proper

Evil - 1 morally bad 2 causing harm or injury to someone 3 marked by bad luck or bad events

Right - 1 morally or socially correct or acceptable 2 agreeing with the facts or truth 3 accurate or correct

4 speaking, acting, or judging in a way that agrees with the facts or truth

- 1 behavior that is not morally good or correct 2 a harmful, unfair, or illegal act

Science- 1
knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation

2 a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science

3 a subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc.

In Conclusion, my opponent must prove beyond a reasonable doubt G-d isn't real and furthermore doesn't exist. To be specific, he must prove multiple claims as will be listed below..

1. Imagination, faith and creation isn't a systematic process of human creations

2. Laws of thermodynamics couldn't possibly have anything to do with G-d

3. There is more evidence for some other theory than a worldwide flood.

4. The big bang is possible beyond a reasonable doubt.

5. Evolution is absolute.

6. Duality doesn't exist.

7. Right and wrong isn't good and evil in a human way of thinking.

As of right now, I can't think of any other things Con needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.. So, I'll leave it like this for now.. Anyways, good luck to my opponent in his rebuttal. I'm sure he'll put up a good argument for his stance on this issue.

Debate Round No. 2


Thanks to Pro for his arguments!

He has provided quite a bit for me to refute, so I'll get straight into it.


R1) Imagination, Faith, Creation

Pro argues that the systematic process of innovation that humans use mirrors God's method of creation, supporting the contention that we are all made in his image.
However, this does not at all prove that God exists, as there is a much sounder alternative explanation for this similarity:

The method of imagination, faith, and creation is just logically the natural method of innovation

-Imagination: all purposeful actions must start out as ideas...
-Faith: for the action to be completed, the doer has to continue doing it...
-Creation: the action has to eventually be completed...

Thus, this systematic approach to innovation is not really anything special; it is just the natural approach to doing ANYTHING, so it to be expected that all humans do things this way. And it is only natural that the gods/God they imagine do things that way as well.
This argument simply does not prove the existence of God at all.


R2) First Law of Thermodynamics

Pro states that the fact that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed is very good evidence for God's existence.
However, he does not expand upon why this is so at all, only providing some irrelevant passage about DNA and enzymes following the First Law of Thermodynamics.

I am left unsure of how this argument has anything to do with God's existence...


R3) Second Law of Thermodynamics

"Even evolutionists admit that the theory of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are completely incompatible with each other... evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of complexity. It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true."

Obviously the theory of Evolution probably needs to be true in a Godless Universe, so I think it is worth it to rebut this point.

Saying that the process of Naturalistic Evolution as a whole is subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics is like saying that the movement of Planets is subject to the laws of Quantum Mechanics. The two are on radically different scales and thus cannot be compared at all!
The Second Law of Thermodynamics operates on an atomic/molecular level; the progressive advancement of a species over generations through natural selection is not affected at all on the short term by a process as small-scale and long-term as entropy.
In other words, Evolution involves the continual increase of order and organization on scales, much, much larger than the "force" of entropy affects.

"Since the universe is constantly winding down, the second law of thermodynamics looms before us in the form of a great question: Who wound it up? The only plausible answer is God!"

This has the same problem as the Evolution argument. It makes no sense to subject the huge-scale orderly nature of the universe to the atomic-scale force of entropy!


R4) Global Flood

Normally I would take the time to actually show why occurrence of the global flood is unlikely in order to refute this point.
However, due to a lack of time on my part, I will just stick with a much simpler rebuttal:

Even if there WAS a global flood, that in NO WAY proves the existence of God!

Correlation does not imply causation; just because a global flood happened and the Bible speaks of one does automatically mean the Bible is completely factual. All that would prove is that the Bible has some historical basis, which really goes no where in proving the existence of its God.


R5) Duality

Pro makes the case that the existence of objective morality proves the existence of some objective moral law-giver.
Again, normally I would make a case that objective morality doesn't exist, but that's going to take too much time, so I'm going to go with the simpler argument that there are several possible explanations for why all humans seem to share the same basic moral compass.
One of the most popular theories is that human morality is based in a concern for other humans' suffering, being intrinsic to all humans' brains as a result of Evolution from a common ancestor. Another theory is that one can use logic and reasoning to determine the objective moral value of any action.
Either of these theories are much more plausible than the idea of an all-powerful being deciding what is right and what is wrong.



1. The Imagination-Faith-Creation process is just the natural, logical way of executing any action; it has nothing to do with God at all

2. Pro has not done shown WHY the First Law of Thermodynamics proves the existence of God

3. Neither the process of Evolution nor the structure of the Universe are subject as a whole to the Second Law of Thermodynamics

4. Even if a Global Flood happened, it would not prove the existence of God at all

5. Objective morality can exist without God existing


With that, I hand the debate back over to my opponent for his counter-rebuttals.

A short reminder to Pro: this round you are about to post will be your last round in the debate, so please keep that in mind...

Good luck!



Haroush forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Unfortunately, Pro has forfeited the only round he had, and has thus failed to make any counter-rebuttals.

Extend all arguments.

Vote Con.


Haroush forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Haroush 2 years ago
No problem.. I actually got caught up in some things myself..
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
I'll have my rebuttals in sometime tomorrow.
Posted by Haroush 2 years ago
Shew! Finally done! At least with my original argument.
Posted by Valtin 2 years ago
I am looking forward for this debate!
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Done :D

Looking forward to your next arguments.
Posted by Haroush 2 years ago
Sounds good... so, just pass the next round so that I can go into further explanation and you can rebuttal afterwards.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Oh yeah, of course.
It's totally up to you how you want to organize your rounds, as long as you're following the debate rule about not posting any arguments or rebuttals in round 4.
Posted by Haroush 2 years ago
Well, just more evidence... You know what I mean.. Also, so that I can make more clarifications with definitions.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
A "bigger case" ?
Posted by Haroush 2 years ago
Yeah.. let's talk about how you want to work this out.. I want to make a bigger case for my argument.. Maybe you can make a bigger case for your rebuttal in Return...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had decent arguments, but failed to meet the BoP. In addition he quit after Con posted his first argument. Pro had sources, but they failed to support his argument since they didn't have arguments that aided his BoP but instead showed possibility.