The Instigator
Pro (for)
14 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

God may exist

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 1/6/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 686 times Debate No: 67916
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)




He may exist


I accept this debate and the rules.
Debate Round No. 1


God may exist

(IE) God could exist

There is a chance God could exist.

God could possibly exist


Possible - Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.[1]

(1) For something to not be possible it has to contradict proven facts or laws
(2) God does not contradict proven facts or laws because he cannot be proven
(c) God could possibly exist



How Come Praying Cannot Work?

In the Bible it says that God will give you whatever you want if you pray.

Matthew 7:7

        Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

I prayed that I would be struck by lightning in the next five seconds, but it did not happen.

There Is No Scientific Evidence Supporting God Was Here

God never left any physical evidence of his existence on Earth, and if he did than someone would have preserved it.
The Bible is clearly made by man, since if God wrote it than there would not be so many flaws.
Huge atrocities such as the Holocaust happened without any response from God.

God Contradicts His Rules

Exodus 35:2

        For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death

There are many places in the Bible where God asks his followers to kill for example Leviticus 20:13

        If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

According to Psalm 18:30 ....
God's way is perfect. All the LORD's promises prove true. He is a shield for all who look to him for protection. This God—his way is perfect; the word of the LORD proves true; he is a shield for all those who take refuge in him.

God cannot exist since he put his followers up to killing people, but that is contradictory, so God cannot be perfect, by transition there is no way the Biblical God can exist.
Debate Round No. 2


Pro relates this to the Christian God but the title is God.

God -

God for all practical purposes is considered to be Yahweh, Allah, Etc. Yahweh is specifically the Christian God, which was cons entire case.

Deism -

This is the belief that God created the universe, and is not an active part of it anymore. There is also no way to negate this theory with empirical evidence, so it remains a possibility.

Con drops my entire syllogism which is summarized as this.

(1) For something to not be possible it has to contradict proven facts or laws
(2) God does not contradict proven facts or laws because he cannot be proven
(c) God could possibly exist

For God to not possibly exist, there has to be empirical evidence that is directly relative to God's existence. Since there is not empirical evidence directly related to God's existence, he still could possibly exist because the possibility of him existing does not contradict known laws or facts.


Pro has been adding onto the BoP since round one, which is unfair. Pro had also posted a single philisophical arguement as opposed to my many arguements. I suspected we were discussing the Christian God, since that God is discussed most. Overall, this debate has been a poor one, due to Pro changing the BoP after I had posted on round 2. The comment by Miv_Tu had been correct for this debate. Overall, I will thank my opponent, and say vote con!
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Codedlogic 2 years ago
Pros position argument is equivalent to saying "It hasn't been proven there are an odd number of gumballs in the machine therefore there must be an even number of gumballs in the machine." The inability to establish a contrary claim is not an argument for the affirmative. Thus I am voting for Con. Con failed their BOP.
Posted by PapaNolan 2 years ago
Does anyone want to actually debate this topic instead of doing what Valar did?
Posted by Miv_Tu 2 years ago
Again why am I NOT surprised that Valar_Dohaeris is involved in a debate which requires that he only substantiate a POSSIBILITY and not a requirement. Instead of creating the debate which says, "God DOES exist", he joins in the ranks of those who utilize loopholes to illustrate an inability/unwillingness to provide proof of a claim. Instead of supporting his stance on something more defined, he is inclined, from my observations across a number of his debates, to muddle the line between an actual defined stance and a stance on technicality and possible chance. You should be ashamed.
Posted by purpleduck 2 years ago
Not to be rude or anything, but honestly this is really bad topic. Is is POSSIBLE for God to exist? Yeah, of course it is. It is also POSSIBLE for ice cream unicorns, seaweed monsters, the X-men, Pokemon, giant angry gummy bears and the Flying Spaghetti Monster to exist. In fact, it is POSSIBLE for literally anything to exist or even happen.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that proving the non-existance of something is in of itself impossible.
Posted by BDPershing 2 years ago
You should define "may" for it has different meanings, but we could conclude you mean "possibly", as for existence, can you proof we exist? For we could just be objects of imagination by a being who has made this reality by thought, which would show our "god" does exist yet it also means we don't exist and don't have meaning, besides entertainment. But it also opens up the question if this being who created this reality exists, who made him exists? Mind blown, my philosopher teacher hated me for debating him on that, but it was fun even though it could cause a mind gran, and suicide in some extreme cases, some people cant handle the idea that they don't exist for a purpose besides entertainment for some reason.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is having the BoP since he is making the claim whereas Con totally ignore Pro's syllogism. Pro did not mention which God but Con is attacking Bible for no reason. So, my vote go to Pro.
Vote Placed by Codedlogic 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to put forth an argument for their position. Pro never argued for the possibility of God. Pro only stated that it is not known to be impossible for God to exist. The inability to establish a contrary claim is not an argument for the affirmative.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: This is a pretty straightforward debate. Pro makes the claim that God may exist. "May" being translated to "could possibly". From the start this was a free win for Pro. Con came in rebutting the possibility of the existence of the Christian God. If this debate was specific to that it would have been much more impactful. Unfortunately, Con did nothing to rebut the possibility of every other God. This is what cost Con the debate. Con argued in the final round that the additional burden isn't fair, unfortunately, Pro never specified that this was solely pertaining to the Christian God, thus is rightfully applies that Con needed to rebut against the possibility of *any* God, not just the Christian one. I feel bad for Con, because this was clearly a trap from the start for those unable to understand the full weight of the claim Pro was presenting. With that said, this is indeed a clear win for Pro due to Con's narrow rebuttals lacking application to any God other than the Christian one.