The Instigator
Noctan
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
sweetbreeze
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

Humans cannot prove the existence of a God or Deity.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 7 votes the winner is...
Noctan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,493 times Debate No: 35492
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (7)

 

Noctan

Pro

During the first round for this debate I will be making my opening statement(s)/resolution.

The theory that a God or or deity exists cannot be proven by humans. There is no evidence to support this. If there is, I challenge CON to find any evidence that proves a God or deity does in fact exist. I wish CON good luck and hope we both have fun during this debate!
sweetbreeze

Con

Good luck to Pro too.

Now, I argue that humans CAN prove the existence of a God or Deity. The Holy Bible was written by 40 men who did not know each other. Anyway, many humans have already proven the existence of God, but people say that the proof is fake. Well, if people don't believe that the evidence is real, then the people haven't really proven anything. But others, on the other hand, were more successful and managed to convince other people that the evidence is real. THEY have proven the existence of God, so why would you say that humans CAN'T prove the existence of God? You just THINK that they haven't proven anything, because you say that the proof is fake. You had said that there was another proof that had proven God doesn't exist, right? But how would you know that it was real and had valid reasons? You never know, THAT proof against God might as well be fake and the proof FOR God might as well be real.

Think about it. You haven't seen God with your own eyes, but you don't really know for sure that the proof against Him is real. How do you know for sure that the proof against God is real? When I say "know for sure", I mean, actually seing something with your own eyes and something like that.
Debate Round No. 1
Noctan

Pro

First of all I would like to apologize to Con for my slow reply, as I have been busy as of late. As stated previously, I believe that humans cannot prove the existence of a God or deity. I fail to see how Con has in fact given evidence to prove that a God or deity can be proven. Con states that the evidence is there, but people just don't believe that it is true. If you believe a God can be proven, I ask if you could please provide the evidence that it can. Con also brings up something not really a part of the debate when she says I stated that there was proof that proves God doesn't exist. I do not believe in a God or any deity, but I don't see how this is part of the debate. I never stated there was proof God doesn't exist in this debate at all, I said there was no way a God could be proven. I personally do not believe that God can be proven to be real or not real. We can't know for sure that there is or isn't a God. Con is correct that I cannot prove God is not real, but I would like you basically the same question you asked me, how? How do you know God is real and can be proven? Nobody has proven God's existence and nobody has proven God doesn't exist. I challenge Con to find any evidence that God's existence can in fact be proven.

Here are some sources:
http://philosophy.lander.edu...
http://www.austindailyherald.com...
sweetbreeze

Con

As Con had said, humans cannot prove the existence of a God or deity. And why not? Pro, you have said that the Bible is fictional, right? Where is the proof? How is the Bible fictional?

Yes, people have proof to the existence of God, but many people just don't bother believing it is true. I apoligise for not proving anything, but I was saying that humans CAN prove the existence of God or deity.

Pro had said that no-one has proven that God exists, and no-one has proven that He doesn't exist. But, he DID say that there was evidence against God. Look at Noctan's opinion on the "no" side. He had clearly written that there was proof against God.
http://www.debate.org...

Pro challenges me to find proof that God can be proven. Look at my sources, if you want to know.

Sources:

https://school.carm.org...
http://realtruth.org...
http://carm.org...
http://www.everystudent.com...
http://www.peterkreeft.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Noctan

Pro

First of all, the Bible is most likely fiction. You are correct that I can't prove 100% for sure that it's fiction, but evidence suggests it is. It has many stories, such as turning water to wine, and other stories like that which are scientifically impossible. There are also many different versions of the Bible, having different stories, number of pages, etc. But that's not what this debate is about, the Bible proves nothing about God's existence, though. If you give evidence that it does, I would love to hear it.

You then state that people have proven it, but people just don't believe it. This may be because there is no way to prove that God's existence can be 100% proven. As I said, nobody in history has proven that God does not exist, and nobody has proven that he does. We can't know until we die.

Next you say I said there was evidence against God. There is. There is more evidence that he doesn't exist than evidence that he does. That's why I'm an Agnostic Atheist, I believe that God cannot be proven to exist or not exist, but I lean toward him not existing. If I did say there was proof that God doesn't exist, then I worded it wrong. I don't believe I did, but I could be wrong.

Now on to your sources:

Your first source starts by saying the universe could not create its self. Well, you believe God is there, but he had to have had a beginning, and because he exists, he can't create himself. If God does in fact exist, something had to have created him. It also states that the universe is not infinite, but at the same time, it is. The universe is always expanding, at a quick rate, actually. An example would be an infinite number, an infinite number has to keep going to be infinite, and never stop. The universe has never stopped. Also, we can't prove something can't bring itself into existence, I'm not saying it can, but maybe some long time into the future we may find proof.

Your second source starts by saying that evolution can't be proven. Correct, it can't. It does, however have more evidence than creationism, which we cannot possibly have any evidence for, as we were not there, and there is nothing to support it. Many who believe in God believe in evolution, they say God has caused it. Even that is more logical than creationism. It goes on to give no evidence that God can be proven, saying that just because the Bible says God is real that he is. That is not proof. The rest of it says things that do not prove anything, and most of which are still making scientists scratch their heads. It doesn't prove God exists, just that new laws and theories may be being made.

Your third source is just agreeing with me. It states that being an Atheist is making an assumption, but then is being a Christian not an assumption? It is, actually. I remember saying God cannot be proven to exist, and cannot be proven to not exist, but maybe you have forgotten.

I'm not going to get to much into your next source, as again, it is stating theories. Just because they say God exists because of so and so, does not make it true! There are.billions of stars and planets, Earth's existence could be just pure coincidence.

On to your final source. I'm just going to give you a few quotes on this one, and explain why they prove God can't be proven.
' I believe we can answer yes to the first four of these questions about the existence of God but not to the fifth. God exists, we can know that, we can give reasons, and those reasons amount to proof, but not scientific proof, except in an unusually broad sense.'
Those reasons amount to evidence, not proof. He even says, they don't amount to scientific proof!
'A thing can exist whether we know it or not.'

This sides with my argument! We can't know God exists!

In conclusion, during Con's previous argument, she gives sources which give possible theories, but don't prove anything. Some of her sources even side with my argument!
sweetbreeze

Con

Please note that many people have this bad habit of thinking that everything has to be proven to be true, but that isn't true. Just because something isn't proven doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For example, someone heard God speaking. That person told another person that God spoke to them. The other person said, "Prove it." The person that heard God (or they thought they did) said, "Why? I just heard Him. I don't know how I can prove anything." Then, the other person said, "See? It can't be proven. You did not hear God."

Well, that person could have just been hearing things, but it could have been real. Just because things are not proven, doesn't mean it's not real. People just have this bad habit of thinking that. A smart person wouldn't think that.

Just because there's more evidence to God not existing, doesn't make it any more true. There might just be 1 real evidence in a situation, but 100 fake evidence in that situation. But even if there's more proof to one thing than the other, doesn't make it more true. Like I said before, just because something isn't proven, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Yes, you never know a God or deity exists until you die.

For God's existence:
http://carm.org...;
http://carm.org...;
http://carm.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Noctan

Pro

First of all, as this is the last round I would like to thank my opponent for a good debate. I had fun with it, and it was one of my first debates on here.

What you said in this post I completely agree with. God could very well exist and not exist. If God is real, we can't possibly know until we die. Maybe God could be real, but there is no Heaven. Maybe God isn't real. We just can't know. It is possible that one day God may be proven, but I don't think we'll ever know until dead.

I thank you again for a good debate, I had fun.
sweetbreeze

Con

Thank you, Pro for challenging me to such a wonderful debate. And, until next time, get debating!
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
Sweet breeze, what you're demonstrating is a misunderstanding of the resolution. You're right that something existing has no bearing on the evidence--things either exist or they don't, even if we fail to recognize it. However the resolution doesn't ask that. Pro posits that it's impossible to *prove* God exists and proof requires not only evidence but so much evidence that to deny it becomes foolish. I didn't see any evidence for the existence of God in this debate, just you arguing, essentially, "you can't DISPROVE God".

The resolution isn't that It's impossible God exists, it's that it's impossible to PROVE that he does. While Pros arguments could have been fleshed out a lot more, it just seemed like you were arguing a completely different resolution
Posted by Noctan 3 years ago
Noctan
Thett was just saying that you didn't give evidence for the Bible being real, you actually only stated there was no evidence against it being true. He says there is.
Posted by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
No, Noctan, I did not assume, I knew, and I did not mean to be racist. Very sorry.
Posted by Noctan 3 years ago
Noctan
That's actually pretty racist. Assuming whites habbit is to ask for proof, and then if there is some to assume it never happened, is false. I'm white, and I agree that if something cannot be proven, it doesn't mean that it isn't real. I agree. I was just debating about this topic to say God cannot be proven, not to say he is or isn't real.
Posted by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
Noctan, no, I did not get the post wrong. I was talking to the person who voted on this debate. And it's white people's habit, not Asians' or Blacks'. White people got the idea wrong. They say that, "If something isn't proven, it's impossible be true." but it's really, "If something isn't proven, it's uncertain to be true." I'm not saying that the white people meant the second idea, but I'm saying that they meant the first idea, but the second idea is the truth. The truth can stand on its own. Having evidence or not has no bearing on it.
Posted by Noctan 3 years ago
Noctan
Uh, sweetbreeze. You either got the wrong name or meant to post this somewhere else. But how is it 'white people's habbit'????
Posted by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
thett3, something's existence has no bearing on evidence. That means that it's independent and doesn't need a backing up for it to exist. Same with lots of other things. You see something unknown, then someone says that you have to prove it, but you don't have proof. It might have just been an illusion, but it could have been real. Things are independent and don't need evidence for it to stand. It can stand on its own. People just have this bad habit of thinking that everything needs evidence to be real, but they don't understand how wrong they are. It's white people's habit.
Posted by Jegory 3 years ago
Jegory
ModusTollens: The resolution states that humans CANNOT prove the existence of a God or Deity. Therefore, BoP is on PRO; he is the one making the claim. I suggest that you revise your vote, or at least rewrite the reasons for your vote rather than voting entirely on confirmation bias.
Posted by love1626 3 years ago
love1626
Humans can`t prove the existence of God, that`s a fact but it doesn`t necessarily mean that he don`t exist. It is our faith that makes him alive and existing. It is not like a theorem that needs to be proven but a postulate that should be accepted. If you know what I mean.
Posted by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
@trailfaz

Yes, He does exist.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
NoctansweetbreezeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate is pretty weird to judge because there was no real clash on what "prove" actually meant, but throughout the debate, Cons primary argument was that the Bible is real, but her only argument for that was that there was no evidence AGAINST it being true. This is hardly an affirmative case for Christianity. I was tempted to vote Con by default because Pro didnt really argue very much in favor of the resolution (even though its a really, really easy resolution to affirm) but I can't give the win to Con who didnt even understand the resolution (proven=/= evidence for). So Pro gets the victory, but only just.
Vote Placed by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
NoctansweetbreezeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - both were excellent! S&G - both easy to read. Arguments - both missed some strong evidence based arguments. Pro had the BOP and did not succeed. Con's position that humans have proven the existence of God to the satisfaction of so many was (to me) an interesting approach that PRO never successfully refuted. Sources - neither side reference individual points in the traditional sense, but Con used one of Pro's former debates as evidence, and had the majority of background source references.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 3 years ago
1dustpelt
NoctansweetbreezeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter TheEpicMinecrafter full 7 VB. He provided justification for the sources though. the others were BS
Vote Placed by TheEpicMinecrafter 3 years ago
TheEpicMinecrafter
NoctansweetbreezeTied
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 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: Con convinced me more than pro and also had more sources than Pro which gave me a lot to read. Also, Con had a little bit better conduct as to writing a friendly closing to the debate.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
NoctansweetbreezeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Only arguments to Con because I believe he met his BOP. I think he could have argued it better, but met it none the less. I think this was mainly in the wording, because by accepting the debate Con took the actual BOP. She had to show humans could, and PRO had to merely show that there was no way for humans to prove this.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 3 years ago
MrJosh
NoctansweetbreezeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: In the first round, PRO accepted the BOP to show that "The theory that a God or or deity exists cannot be proven by humans." He also assigned a BOP to CON when he wrote, "I challenge CON to find any evidence that proves a God or deity does in fact exist." CON accepted that BOP by accepting the debate. Neither party met their BOP, the debate is a wash.
Vote Placed by ModusTollens 3 years ago
ModusTollens
NoctansweetbreezeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con does not understand the concept of burden of proof, or that of the null hypothesis. As Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Personal experience, eyewitness accounts, and the supposed improbability of a certain book's authorship do not a case for anything make.