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

Is There Any Scientific Evidence That Points To Gods Existence ?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 576 times Debate No: 68269
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




The First Round Will Be For You To Formally Except My Challenge XVIII18.
I Personally Thank You For This Opportunity. (Note, The Pro Side Believes That Evidence Exists)


I accept and look forward to this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


To Start My Opening Argument I Would First Like To Get Two Important Definitions Out Of The Way, Science And God.
God As Defined By The Merriam-Webster's Dictionary Is An Incorporeal Supreme Being That Has Power Over The Universe And The Lives Of Humans. Science As Defined By The Same Dictionary Is Knowledge About The Natural World Gained Through Observation Or Experimentation. Because Of The Experiment Portion Of The Definition It May Seem That The Concept Of God Is Not Very Scientific. You Must Not, However Forget The Observation Portion. Once You Look At Proven Facts About Our Universe You Will See That Gods Existence Is More Probable Than Improbable.
First You Must Look At The Size Of Our Universe Itself. If Our Universe Was Much Smaller Than It Is, There Wouldn't Have Been Enough Mass For Nuclear Fusion To Have Taken Place Immediately After The Big Bang.
The Amount Of Helium Necessary For The Formation Of Heavy Metals Would Never Have Existed. Which Means Rock Planets Like The Earth Could Never Have Formed. If The Universe Was Expanding Much Faster Galaxies Wouldn't Even Form.
These Are Just A Few Of The Observable Evidence For A Degree Of Fine-Tuning In Our Universe.
Though Pure Coincidence Is Possible It Seems Much More Probable For A Designer.


I would just like to make this clear: The lack of scientific evidence in a certain topic does not scientifically conclude that there is a God.

For example and under similar logic, we currently do not know how exactly thunder forms in clouds. Therefore, using your statement, I can believe that it is Thor throwing his hammer down on the world. I can make this claim, but is it scientific? No. There is most certainly a scientific FACTUAL explanation for why thunder occurs we just have not found an explanation as of yet. Just because there is a lack of evidence in a scientific topic again does not provide ANY form of DIRECT EVIDENCE of a God. Long ago people believed that the stars within the sky were holes for God/Gods to look down upon them. However, we have indeed proven that those bright things in the sky are stars just like our sun. So, this is just an example of how humans have wrongly thought that a lack of evidence provided an existence of God.

Using your defined definitions science is essentially the study of dealing with facts and understanding the operation of natural laws. Unfortunately, God has never scientifically, factually proven he has existed otherwise we would not be having this debate. If he was scientifically proven you could find numerous scientific evidences and scientific experiments that God does in fact exist.

You state: "Though Pure Coincidence Is Possible It Seems Much More Probable For A Designer."

Where is your scientific evidence claiming there is a designer? Again, you are coming to the conclusion that because you do not know something that it automatically must be God which is scientifically inaccurate. This is just your own mythical/spiritual explanation of the world with no scientific evidence to back it up.
Debate Round No. 2


Your Argument At Its Core Is That Only Blind Ignorance Leads To Superstition.
In A Sense This Is True, All Cultures Have Primitive Myths For Things They (At The Time) Could Not Comphrehend.
Which Makes Perfect Sense, Ask Yourself, Why Matter Exists At All ?
As I Have Preveiously Stated, Our Universe Points To A Certain Degree Of Fine-Tuning And I Also Said That Its Possible That Fine-Tuning Could Be One Big Coincidence. However Until Concrete Undisputable Scientific Data Emerges Our Best Option Is The Supernatrual Because Humans Cannot Understand The Reason Behind Our Universe.


Obviously my opponent must provide scientific evidence of God in order to claim that there is scientific evidence that points to God. That is the topic of this debate. Let me also define science by a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of FACTS or TRUTHS systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws

Again, you are stating that just because we do not know everything about the universe, there must be a God. This is not scientific thinking as you do not have evidence to support this claim. Now, if there was scientific evidence of God we would not be having this debate and would instead be studying God through a scientific lens and experiments.

"Why does Matter Exists At All ?"

-Matter exists because of the Big Bang that resulted from a singularity. This led to a rapid expansion of the universe which led to galaxies, which led to stars, which led to life as we know it.

"However Until Concrete Undisputable Scientific Data Emerges Our Best Option Is The Supernatural Because Humans Cannot Understand The Reason Behind Our Universe."

Again, this is a very illogical unscientific conclusion. Where is the SCIENTIFIC evidence that shows the universe came about supernaturally under a God. Just because you think there might be a Godly "touch" to the universe does not mean that you have evidence of God, that is purely your own opinion.
Debate Round No. 3


I Thank My Opponent For Pointing Out My Error In My Supporting Argument.
You Did However Avoid The Question Behind My Statement, Obliviously Matter Arose After The Big Bang But What Caused It ?
To Answer My Own Question That Spawned This Debate There Is No Scientific Evidence For God That Cannot Be Put Off As Pure Coincidence. The Sole Exception To This Is Areas That Do Not And May Never Have Scientific Evidence Such As What Caused The Big Bang To Happen. In Such Areas The Only Viable Explanation Is The Supernatural.
I Personally Thank My Opponent For Such An Enlightening Debate No Matter What The Voters Decide.
As Such, I Rest My Case.


Had this debate been about the POSSIBILITY of God existing my opponent would have a fair point. However, considering the fact that this debate is revolving around the SCIENTIFIC proof/authenticity of God, he does not. Pro's argument is based on the idea that a lack of scientific evidence in certain random topics is FACTUAL, SCIENTIFIC proof that God exists. This is incorrect as Pro has not provided ANY evidence and/or facts showing that God exists on a scientific basis (he would obviously need to do so in order to scientifically provide evidence of God).

Science is in fact slowly making progress into how matter arose using quantum mechanics and physical relativity. In fact, some theories are already being produced by the some of the world's top scientists such as Stephen Hawking in order to answer this question.

"In such areas, the only viable explanation is the supernatural"

Again, just because we do not know something scientifically yet, does not mean it is automatically supernatural and SCIENTIFICALLY, FACTUALLY proven. Some believed that Gods lived on top of the tallest mountains in the world, yet, we have obviously proven first hand and scientifically that this is not true. Some people believed that stars were used as a method for the Gods to look down upon us. In each case, we have ultimately come up with scientific conclusions that prove these views incorrect. So, using the lack of scientific knowledge in an area does not in anyway provide SCIENTIFIC, FACTUAL evidence of God which is the definition of scientific evidence and what this debate is about.

I thank pro for providing an entertaining debate.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by PointlessQuestions 2 years ago
I Thought I Debated This Pretty Well, Considering How Little Undisputed Evidence I Had On My Side.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
Science is used to understand and explain the natural world not the supernatural world, for that you use your imagination.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Brian123456 2 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 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Huh