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

God's 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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 387 times Debate No: 71207
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)




if you an Atheist or something,
and you have tough argument to prove the motion wrong.
well the platform is here!!!!!!!!!!
the first round is meant for introduction, my opponent gives a brief statement about him/herself ...and so on.
the real thing starts in the second round.


I accept this debate.

As for an introduction of myself, I haven't all too much to say--I'm a former Christian turned agnostic, and have my doubts about the existence of a creator and the validity of any particular religion. Hopefully this debate will shed some light on one of the most profound and strenuous questions of our time.

I'll pass this back over to PRO for his opening arguments. Best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1


chezbona forfeited this round.


PRO is affirming a positive statement, and thus has the BOP. He has forfeited R2 without providing any argument, so I have nothing to rebut.
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you Pro for making this a fair debate by not posting any argument.
Thank you!
And i proceed,
If i told you that this website just sprung into existence, would you believe me, that the dresses you wear wove themselves, would you believe me. My guess is no. you would say that i'm crazy.
well if this website didn't make itself and your dresses didn't just spring into existence then how did the moon get out of there, the sun, stars, planets. If not someone wiser than us created it.
God exists and it is evident.
because you are a non-believer, i'm not going to base my arguments on faith or miraculous experiences. i'm going to be factual, evident and straight froward.
I believe that God exists and that explains how the world was created,
when you were a child, did you ever startle your parents by asking "where do babies come from"
they must have felt awkward about discussing it. Just like that, Scientist seem reluctant to discuss on an even reluctant fundamental question "WHERE DO LIFE COME FROM"

many who believe in evolution would tell you that billions of years ago, life began on the edge of a tidal pool or deep in the ocean.They feel that in such condition, chemicals spontaneously assembled into bubbled like structures, formed complex molecules and began replicating.
They believe all life originated by accident from one or more of these 'simple' cells.
The answer to the question "where do babies come from" is well documented and uncontroversial. LIFE ALWAYS COME FROM PRE-EXISTING LIFE. however, if we go back far enough in time, is it really possible that this fundamental law was broken? could life have spontaneously spring from non-living chemicals? what are the chances that such an event ever could happen!
All scientific research indicate that life cannot spring from non living matter, so there fore what is the scientific basis for saying that life sprang from non-living chemicals.
Researchers have also recreated in a laboratory, the environmental conditions that they believe existed early in the earth's history. in these experiments, a few scientist have been able to manufacture some of the molecules found in living things. But if the chemicals in the experiment represents the earth's early condition and the molecules represent the building blocks of life then, whom or what does the scientist who performed the experiment represent?
Does he/she represent a 'blind chance' or an 'intelligent entity'.
again let's ask ourselves " where did all the instructions from our DNA come from? The Bible suggests that this "book" and it's writing originate with super human Author. Is that conclusion out-of-date or unscientific? Consider this: could humans even build a living cell? they would run into real difficulty if they tried.
Much about the human genome and how it functions is little understood as yet. Famous scientist Richard Feynman once left a note "What i cannot create, i do not understand"
Have you ever been mislead? Maybe you heard others talk about God or quote Him.
More than a few educated people take a dim view of the Bible. Some think, that book is often represented or quoted in such a way that it sounds unreasonable, unscientific or just plain wrong.
In the course of reading my argument, were you surprise to learn that what the Bible says is scientifically accurate. In fact there is nothing that the Bible contradicts scientists' various estimates on the age of the universe.
Furthermore, the bible does state that God created all life and all things that are made according to their kinds. These statements maybe odds with certain scientific theories, but not with established scientific facts. The history of science shows that theories come and go, FACTS remain.
lastly have you ever wondered, IS THERE A GOD
if then, why does he allow wickedness. The bible addresses that question as well as many others. You can find answers that are fascinating, thrilling, reasonable-and based on convincing evidence. And that is no accident.
God exists.
Thank you!!


Burden of Proof

PRO never contested that he had the burden of proof to prove that God existed, whereas in order to win, I only need to prevent him for fulfilling that burden. Even after his response, he has yet to do that because the question of God has no truth value. He can make arguments for why he believes God exists or why a God may fit into his worldview, but he cannot prove it because the question is beyond our comprehension. Therefore, you're voting CON by default.

Furhter, as I'll explain in a bit, PRO plagiarized much of his argument, so you're voting for me anyway.

Origins of Existence

PRO's first argument doesn't actually make a positive argument in favor of God, but only poses questions as to where life came from. He offers a false analogy about the creation of this website, forgetting that there's plenty of scientific backing for how the universe could have self-created.

Dr. Michio Kaku offers the following:

"But how can an entire universe come out of nothing? This apparently violates the conservation of matter and energy. But there is a simple answer. Matter, of course, has positive energy. But gravity has negative energy. (For example, you have to add energy to the earth in order to tear it away from the sun. One separated far from the solar system, the earth then has zero gravitational energy. But this means that the original solar system had negative energy.) If you do the math, you find out that the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy, yielding a universe with zero (or close to zero) net matter/energy. So, in some sense, universes are for free. It does not take net matter and energy to create entire universes. In this way, in the bubble bath, bubbles can collide, create baby bubbles, or simple pop into existence from nothing. This gives us a startling picture of the big bang, that our universe was born perhaps from the collision of two universes (the big splat theory), or sprouted from a parent universe, or simply popped into existence out of nothing. So universes are being created all the time." []

In other words, the universe can self-create, without the necessity of a God, meaning that God is nothing more than an assumption which we reject via Occam's Razor. This does not disprove that there could be a God, but it is not my burden to disprove him, but only to refute PRO's arguments with respect to the necessity of a God. All PRO is doing is substituting something he doesn't understand for something he doesn't understand. Uncertainty can never take the place of uncertainty, meaning he cannot possily prove the existence of God.

His Next Two Capitalized Headings

His next two heading, from "many who believe in evolution" to "researchers have also recreated in a laboratory" was plagiarized from this link: not tolerate plagiarism--vote CON.

Further, he doesn't even formualate this into a coherent argument. How does this experiment prove God in the slightest? Why shoud we care about what the scientist supposedly "represented?" or "where the instructions from DNA came from?" None of that in the slightest provides evidenc for GOD.

PRO goes on to talk about the Bible and claim that the Bible does not contradict science. This is patently false.

(1) The Bible says the Earth is 6,000 years old. The Earth is actually 4.5 billion years old.
(2) The Bible says there was a Great Flood. Geological evidence tells us there was no Great Flood ( Further, such a flood would not have been possible because we couldn't have placed so many animals which require so many different living conditions together and expected harmony and for enough to survive to sustain a population.

There's a lot more wrong with the Bible, and this only a starting point, but these are enough to completely destroy PRO's arguments.


PRO has plagiarized and provided us with nothing more than an incoherent argument that doesn't fulfill his BOP.

Therefore, vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Plagerism= 7 point auto loss.
Vote Placed by Joss_Whedon 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I Don't know if God exists. I hope He does, but Con had a better argument. I feel someone else could make a better argument for God.
Vote Placed by imabench 1 year 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: plagiarism and partial forfeit