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


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: 5/28/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 782 times Debate No: 34297
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




"Your focus determines your reality" - Qui-Gon


We will ignore the one I sent you. God is defined as the higher intelligent being that created the Universe. BOP is held by both parties, and sources are unnecessary.
All other disagreements shall be cleared up in the comment section.
Debate Round No. 1


and they understand that there is no DNA evidence to show that all animals on earth came from single breeding pairs just a few thousand years ago.

Mt. Everest was never covered in flood water, the ark dimensions were supposedly at least 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. It has been proven that a boat that large, made out of wood, would not survive. The ark could also not hold millions of species, what would they eat? where they excrete?

Horse Shoe Bend at the Grand Canyon is carved in a hill side rather than points either to the north or south that are lower. The numerous ridges and rock towers show any evidence of water flowing around hard spots, as that would leave islands not peninsula formations perpendicular to the direction of the canyon. Curiously the geology explains all the features of the Grand Canyon with normal known geological processes, just as it explains layers and layers of 20 year old clams on mountaintops, no magic needed.

"Erosion. Normal erosion, just as is observed in the canyon today. The original meanders were formed when the land was relatively flat, before the land was uplifted, but they have been "locked in place" as the gradual erosion of the river has cut through the uplifting rock as fast as it lifts up. It's really simple." - Unknown

Flood plain rivers grow meanders, but during periods of low flow, as the turbulence and inertia of the water works against the banks that contain such low flow. Floods overtop the banks, and quickly erode short cuts across meanders - again due to turbulence and inertia. This patter holds in the Mississippi, the Nile and other rivers that traverse wide flood plains:

- Low flow: erosion carves meanders but the flow is contained in the main channel.

- Flood flow: erosion destroys meanders as the flow is no longer contained to the main channel, but overtops it, and the flow direction is then governed by the energy gradient of the whole flooded surface, ignoring the low flow channels.

This is why the scablands look like they do: the water was higher than the banks of any existing channels. "Dry Falls" was completely submerged and made barely a ripple in the flow.


Thank you Silvertechfilms.

In the last eight paragraphs you wrote, you tried to disprove the story of the flood I guess. I am not really sure what you were trying to prove, but here is my take.

The bible was not meant to be taken word for word. It is my belief that the bible contains stories that give you morals to live by. I know you will address the Old Testament that contains slavery, homophobic writings, and death. But let me ask you this question, Did we throw the Constitution out because it had slavery in it? Did Abraham Lincoln crumple the Constitution and say that we could no longer go by it because one part had slavery in it? This is essentially what you are doing with the bible. Let's all remember that this was a much different time. It is my belief that God changes with society as things that once were not acceptable become acceptable.

Since I am also sure that you will say there is no God because you have no proof, here are some scientific theories that are commonly known as fact that I would like to share.

The Big Bang Theory, which is widely accepted throughout the fields of science, is said to have started the Universe. Because our Universe is expanding, it must have been created. Therefore, all the stars you see at night, the planets, and the sun were created by the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang, there was some matter, but not much. Now this sounds a lot like the bible (There was nothing and let there be light etc.). Amazingly, something powerful must have caused the Big Bang. Something beyond our comprehension. Enlighten me Silvertechfilms. What do you think caused the Big Bang? If it were a super nova, one would think there would be evidence of debris left.

As we go further into space, we see repetitions and designs, intelligent designs that are unexplainable. Are you going to still tell me this is just a coincidence?

Lets get closer to home. Look around you. Have you ever done that? Sometimes I like to step back and just sort of look around at the wonders we know. Think about this, we have 5 chemicals in our body that practically code for our whole being. How on Earth could that just happen? Let us also look at some theories as to how life got here.

Some scientists will tell you that there were protocells hundreds of millions of years ago that came together to form a cell after either a heat source or lightning gave it energy. This theory is simply ridiculous. This goes against Cell Theory, and if this is true why is it not happening in the ocean right now? Wouldn't this still be occurring, if it could happen once it could certainly happen twice. And for these molecules to be in the right place at the exact moment of a sudden heat source or lightning bolt would probably be further proof of a higher power.

In the next round please answer these questions, If god does not exist, what caused the Big Bang? How did the first life get here? How is science and everything we see around us just a coincidence?

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2


Correction: you stated "tried" it should of said "successfully"

If you want morals, the Bible is that last book you should be looking at.

To which morals do you refer, The part where God created mass-genocide and flooded the earth, or when he told the army to rape all of the virgin woman in the village.

The Constitution mentions nothing of supporting slavery, there is only the amendment that outlaws slavery.
If God has a plan, then his mind would never change, what we do would have no effect on his decisions.

We've proven scientifically that there exist particles that can form out of literally nothing, and after so many years (I mean a LOT of years, like 10^100^100^100 or something like that) Then those particles coalesced into the singularity. Followed by Big Bang, and once the universe ends he same thing will happen again.

As we come to the end of the universe, we find evidence of the big bang, there are particles there from when it happened.

So when TNT is ignited and blows up, was that God doing all of the work? I didn't think so.

If God is real, he is unwilling to help people, he doesn't really care. Why don't you tell some of the starving kids in Africa that God has a plan for them, Is that his plan? to make them suffer.


I have more questions for Con if he could be kind enough to answer them in the next round.

Where are these particles that come from nothing? What have we found at the edges of the Universe that proves there is no god?

To answer one of Silvertechfilms' questions, I refer to the morals that say treat your neighbor like you treat yourself, blessed are the meek etc.

I also must say that Silvertechfilms has done a lot to try to disprove the bible, and I really do not know why. I have never said that the bible is true and therefore god exists. Why are you putting your time and effort into proving the bible wrong, when this debate is about God, not necessarily the Catholic and Christian God?

I will end with some final questions for Con

Particles that come from nothing defy the law of conservation of matter, that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Isn't this further proof of God? Doesn't this prove that God did not need to be created by another intelligent force? Couldn't this be the means by which God creates things?
Debate Round No. 3


You claim that these particles violate the conservation of matter law, but nothing in science is concrete. We're always making new discoveries. Something we accept as fact one day can easily be disproven the next.

"I also must say that Silvertechfilms has done a lot to try to disprove the bible, and I really do not know why. I have never said that the bible is true and therefore god exists. Why are you putting your time and effort into proving the bible wrong, when this debate is about God, not necessarily the Catholic and Christian God?" Well maybe there is a flying spaghetti monster, or a pink unicorn controlling everything. Maybe it is Master Yoda who is really in charge. But wait, maybe there isn't a god at all.

"No amount of belief makes something a fact" - James Randi


"Nothing in science is concrete."

So everything we as a species have been working on for over 2000 years isn't, "concrete."

Yes, something we accept as fact one day can easily be disproven the next day, but until that day comes, we know what we know. Saying your wrong and one day it will be proven that your wrong and I'm right because of science, does not make you correct.

Allow me to ask you more questions that you will completely ignore.

What exactly do you base your beliefs on? You have no facts or data behind any of your beliefs or ideas. Do you believe that there is nothing higher than us because smart people like Richard Dawkins and Bill Mahr call everyone who does stupid? I beg you to answer these questions in the next round, or at least answer any question from the rounds above that you simply ignored.

Also, thank you for bringing the FSM into this. As we all know, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is 100% proof that there is no God. Although I do find the gospel of the FSM quite amusing, as I do own one, it really has no place in a religious debate. Either find real evidence that there is not a higher power, or don't be so upfront and radical about your atheism. I believe that God made us in his own image because it makes sense that he would have. If you were in God's shoes, would you have not made the human race in your own image?
Debate Round No. 4


Believing in something doesn't make it a fact.

I don't need beliefs, I have evidence to support my theories. Obviously you have never heard a debate or watched a documentary from/about Richard Dawkins or Bill Maher.

Why not? It is just as believable as your religion, who are you to tell someone that there god isn't real, but yours is? The Bible is also quite amusing by the way. Not really, why not come up with a new design? Why not make something different? Why make billions of stars and only inhabit one of them? Wouldn't that make the rest of them kind of a waste?


Correction, I frequently watch Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins. I enjoy watching well-informed, educated, and intelligent people talk about a higher power.

Also, what evidence do you base your beliefs off of? Because, you have shown no reason to be atheist. Although I do not know everything there is to know, I have never told anyone there religion was wrong. (Atheism is not a religion because a religion is defined as believing in a higher power. This is from a Bill Maher segment that I believe is called Bill Maher on why Atheism isn't a religion.) All religions are based on at least some fact that there is a higher being that created us.

My opponent has shown no proof that there is no god, while I have clearly shown evidence of a higher power using a theory commonly accepted throughout the fields of science as fact known as the Big Bang Theory. He has also failed to answer any of my questions that I clearly gave to him to answer.

Con has also blindly stated that science isn't, "concrete," while giving nothing to back up his claims. Con has also tried to disprove the flood theory, which was not mentioned until he brought it up, and failed to realize that this was never accepted as proof of God.

I strongly urge a pro vote.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by CanWeKnow 4 years ago
They, you mean God?
Posted by xXMa5terDebat0rXx 4 years ago
Back then they didn't know much about places more than 50 miles away...
Posted by CanWeKnow 4 years ago
I always thought that Noah's ark took place in a body of water that covered the entire world? There is no text that insists locality.
Posted by xXMa5terDebat0rXx 4 years ago
Noah's ark took place in the Black Sea, not in Everest or Grand Canyon, noob.
Posted by CanWeKnow 4 years ago
See but that's the problem. God isn't a reason. God is a quadruplequintillionbilliontrillion to one accident, and no God isn't.
Posted by MattHarrison 4 years ago
I believe it is more likely there is a reason for our existence, rather than we are here because a billion to one accident occurred.
Posted by CanWeKnow 4 years ago
This is kind of an opinion, but for me it comes down to Parsimony. Atheists say "Yes, we had the Big bang and that's how our current universe came to be. No, we can't say for sure what caused the Big Bang but eventually we will find the answer." Theists say "Yes yes the Big Bang happened, of course it happened. Why did the Big Bang happen? Because a intelligent being with a complex biological structure similar to that of ours made it happen." Atheists reply with "Ok, that MAY be true, but the probability of it being true is slim to none. It's more likely that there is a much more simple answer that doesn't have as far reaching implications as God does." Because when you make the assumption of a personal God, who made us in his own image, who gave us scripture, who gives us revelation to man, and who gave us moral laws that are undoubtedly correct in all ways you are proposing a very COMPLEX and improbable answer. Theists answer is complex because in comparison to Atheism's well we aren't sure, it probably just happened, and there is no absolute, undeniable, and unquestionable truth to be found. Theists have to make the case FOR God because he doesn't exist naturally. Atheists just have to say that it's very very very probably not likely and therefore it's not very very very probable that it's not true at all.
Posted by MattHarrison 4 years ago
Silvertechfilms, stop having a fake profile to make yourself look smart. Everyone knows it.
Posted by MakeTrue 4 years ago
My son, you are not praying enough. Perhaps you will win by praying.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 4 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Although con did a pretty bad job, pro only provided "God of the Gaps" evidence, and forgot it is the burden of the religious to prove the existence of a God, not that of the unreligious. Also, I would like to debate you on this topic, MattHarrison. I would be a much more formidable opponent.