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

Is a god real?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 879 times Debate No: 58581
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)




I will be Theist (Pro)
Con will be Atheist
over this long heated subject.

I will use references from the book: "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist" by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek

Use a Philosopher's Mind
5 rounds
Use good arguments, grammar, and spelling
Don't make it personal or subjective try to be objective, please.
Voting Period is 1 month
Best of luck!


I accept your challenge, and may we have an engaging discussion. Before we begin, I would just like to ensure that you plan to analyze and possibly re-phrase the doctors' quotes, rather than just copy them, assuming an argument embedded within the words.

Additionally, I would clarify that atheism (at least my brand) does not preclude or rule-out the existence of a God, but instead holds that the existence of such a deity is unlikely.

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


Sorry, I won't be using that book. I've chosen another book named "The case For Faith" by Lee Strobel; since it didn't have what I wanted and it was really bias towards Darwinists.

This will be my first Debate Subject: Evolution. Disclaimer: I do believe in Evolution but just organisms adapting to survive in their environments not Molecule to Elephant in 4 billion years. I also believe that Evolution and Creation can intertwine since in Genesis the 7 day creation of the universe could have a double-meaning.

"The Theory of Evolution is that all life started as single-celled organisms that progressed through time into what we are today." (This is a very brought-down definition but I'm going to use it since everyone knows what it is.) The Theory of Evolution is supported by macroevolution and Microevolution.

I will make the actual argument small because I want to see what my contender has to say, first.
My first argument is that evolution is thrown out the window because 1. DNA and RNA is too complex to be created since the synthesis for building blocks have been made in near impossible conditions that do not resemble the early earth. And 2. The Earth took a lot of time to cool down to the right temperature leaving a time gap of about 400 million years with the first emergence of life; and even with all the carbon in the galaxy placed on the earth it would still take a couple of billion years and even then the chance of making one working protein is still 10 with 60 zeros after it. Meaning life couldn't have been made on this earth in the 400 million years.


I thank my opponent for their opening statements.

I was under the impression, apparently the misapprehension, that this debate covered the regions of the existence of a deity, rather than the validity or tenability of the Theory of Evolution. Evolution is often implied in the atheist worldview, and most atheists are Darwinists, but they are not mutually supporting or mutually existing; one can survive without the other, and to attack evolution is not to attack atheism or promote the God theory. Additionally, Evolution does not in any way comment on the creation of diverse species, but instead on their formation and on their linear development through time. So I would prefer arguments specifically for the existence of a deity, or an attack on atheist contentions, which I think are needed to legitimize the proposition.

Charges Against Evolution

1. I must say, I do not find it my opponent's place to say whether DNA or RNA is too complex to have been naturally coagulated from the various chemical occupants of the early atmosphere. Scientists reporting in the magazine "Nature" certainly think conditions were ripe: they managed to replicate, using the approximate composition of the young earth, to produce RNA, a slightly primordial version of DNA.

""By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides," said Sutherland. "The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth." (1)

Those who participated in this experiment could easily have the formula wrong, or may have made a mistake, or failed to properly recreate primeval conditions. Regardless, the point is that from very basic chemicals, the essential building blocks of life, and eventually consciousness, could be produced. We now know for a fact that the very first entities that could be reasonably called "life" were indeed single-celled organisms, the simplest form possible, which implies that were a God to create them, this deity is either very inept, or possesses a very complicated and tedious plan for humans to eventually walk His creation. (2) I must ask: which hypothesis is more likely?

2. I will confess to being slightly confused on this second point. What 400 millions years are you suggesting life could not have been created in? You do realize the earth is 5 billion years old? 400 millions years is not especially significant. According to the BBC, the first prokaryot being came into existence approximately 3.8 billion years ago, and these were lifeforms that could survive in almost any climate or geological event or condition. (3) I see no possible position in which to claim that life could not have been created due to climactic impossibilites.

While my opponent should present a source on the likelihood of life, there is little doubt that it is unimaginably infeasible. However, you will notice, should you look through a powerful telescope, that though the human race can literally see millions of planets, not one appears to have any markers or evidence of life. Were an abundance of alien species observable, then that would issue a severe challenge to the scientific theory of creation, but instead, life exists nowhere, as far as we can see, outside of our little planet, which we have scientifically proven to have ideal conditions were life; unlikely, perhaps, but possible.

And this is where what I like to call the "lottery fallacy" comes in. Although no particular entrant has a good chance of winning a given lottery, the eventual lucky victor is inevitably left saying "what are the chances that I should win out of millions?". Nobody has to win the contest, and that person will always wonder how they pulled it off. Instead of assuming that the raffle was in some way rigged or fixed, instead it is simply a matter of luck mixed with a degree of inevitability. Similarly, odds are actually reasonably good that some planet out of an infinite number should yield intelligent life, and that life will certainly wonder how they came to be against such odds. But nothing special should be made of the fact that the life was us, and not another form on another chunk of rock.

As of yet, my opponent has not made an assault on the Evolution Theory, on the atheistic position, or provided any logical or scientific proofs for God. I await my opponent's next entry.

(3 )
Debate Round No. 2


I didn't state that the earth is 400 million years old, I stated between the right temperature for life and the emergence of life was about 400 million years so that would not make since "even with all the carbon in the universe was placed on earth and you left and came back after 1 billion years; the chance of making one good protien is still about 10 with 60 zeros after it."
(And no we didn't have all of the carbon in the universe so there would be way more zeros.)

*""By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides," said Sutherland. "The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth." (1)*

"Behe has said the probablity of linking together just one hundred amino acids to create one protein by chance would be the same as a blind-man finding one marked grain of sand somewherein the vastness of the Sahara Desert. . . and doing it no just once, but three different times."

I've heard that there is a least one planet like earth in every galaxy and that was from a documentary about space, its a series, kind of Athiest but I like the part about Black Holes!


I thank my opponent for their rebuttals.

The Problem of Likelihood:

This popular challenge to the scientific explanation of life seems to be the focus of my adversary's case, so I will respond to the charge in full, thus covering Pro's entire third round statements.

Now, my opponent seems to concede that it is indeed possible for biogenesis to have taken place, but emphasizes the extreme improbability of this process, which Sir Frederick Hoyle of Harvard placed at 10^40,000 chance of it happening at any given moment at a given location with the proper conditions. (1) An impressive number, undoubtedly, and was there a single place and time which were placed in opposition to these odds, I would be inclined to reject the idea of spontaneous creation.

But to understand likelihood, we must understand under what conditions life could have come about in accordance with the laws of nature. The "goldilocks planet", with a certain distance from its scene, is the scientific codeword for a potentially habitable planet. There are an estimated 45 billion of these earths simply in our galaxy (2), not including moons, nor the rest of the galaxies that make up the 99.99%+ of the universe. While humans have not seen nor recorded all of these, many tens of thousands have, and do you know how many have life on them? One. And that's us. The odds of biogenesis ameliorate rapidly once you factor in billions upon billions of years, where conditions could be right for life on billions and billions of planets, and as far as we can tell, that natural miracle has occurred a single solitary time.

I would further submit that the hump that science must ascend in explaining life and consciousness and complexity is not made better by postulating into the equation an unconsciounably complicated entity whose mind we don't understand, with no clear purpose for coagulating existence or humanity, and who sadly declined to provide us clear indication for any of these things. It it simply too great a leap to make from rejecting biogenesis to accepting the God hypothesis, and then even greater to then embrace a theistic deity. Even Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick, who rashly abandoned the idea of evolution, refused to then implicate in a God, instead opting for an even more fanciful theory of extraterrestrial interference.

I will leave my refutation there, and look forward to what my opponents has to say next.

Debate Round No. 3


Well I just spent an hour working on an argument. And I somehow pressed the exact butttons to delete all of it but I will try to remake it.

The universe is made up of:
4.6% atoms
23% Dark Matter
72% Dark Energy

Light Years-ly

The minimum numbers of galaxies in the universe is about 125 billion. The universe expands about 45 miles per second for every 3.26 million ly. The biggest galaxies are around 300,00 ly across and contain around one thousand billion stars. The smallest galaxies (known as dwarf galaxies) are around a few thousand ly across and have around ten million stars.

Galaxies: are made up of huge collections of stars, gas, dust, and dark matter all bound together by gravity.

Astronomers can currently see about 13.7 billion ly around us and yet the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million ly away and the Triangulum Galaxy is 3 million ly away. They found a Black Hole in the middle of our galaxy and probably one in every galaxy they've looked at. Yet have they found a 'perfect' planet? Yeah, maybe a few not billions like you said. And even then they haven't went real in depth to found out what is the planet actually. Yet look at our galaxy, do they see solar systems teaming with life like Spore? Like you pretty much stated? They can see 13.7 billion ly away but have they proved anything?

You state that I AM has not provided us with clues of his exsistance. And that seeing is believeing. But have you. . .

1. Ever read any of Lee Strobel's work or look at both sides and make a conclusion?
2. If god showed himself to you, would you believe in him, or would the prediction in the Book of Revlations be correct? So really he has no point to show himself to you and the rest of you folks.
3. He gave us earth to use and that evil and non-beliefs is brought to this earth not by god, but by us and the devil
4. I AM loves us, cared for us, and yet we slapped him in his/her/it/god's face by going our separate ways; yet he still backed down by sacrificing his only son to pay for our sins.


I thank my opponent for their refutations.

Now, I believe my opponent has failed to properly research the ideal planet they claim don't exist.

A "perfect planet" is very difficult to define, because life can exist in many different forms in many different conditions. For example, thousands of species survived the heat-death of the planet following the asteroid-extinction of the dinosaurs. (1) The most important factor for life, however, is the effect of the sun, followed by the presence of water. (Not every life-form needs water, but all known multi-celled organisms do). Based on Martian soil samples and close examination, it is very likely that Mars once overflowed with the liquid. (2) There is additionally at least one moon of Saturn's which is also believed to possess life-sustaining amounts of water. (3) Both could easily support life, and this is the simple for one small solar system on the edge of the galaxy. TheGuardian Science section estimates the number of habitable planets within our minuscule galaxy as 2 billion. (4) Were there even remotely intelligent life on any such rock, we would know about it, as we can observe many closely.

However, to this point, we know of no other planet, despite the capacious area where our telescope can see, that can, could have, or will have the correct conditions to produce the first lifeforms. This is, once again, where the lottery fallacy comes in. This time I will rephrase it, to better connect the concept to the subject of the debate. What are the chances that you were born, given the opposition from millions of other sperm cells? What are the chances, then, that your parents should both be born, the product of very unlikely odds, and meet out of billions on earth, and one of their children is you. Now extrapolate this to millions, billions of generations right back to the first life on earth. The unlikelyhood of the same outcome repeating itself is far greater than that of abiogenesis. And yet here you are, thinking only a God could've have created the universe, that the chances are simply too low. Inevitably, there would be a baby born to your parents, and the fact that it was you, and not any of the other millions of sperm, holds no significance, and it is the same way with humans and the universe.

I suppose I ought to respond to your numerically listed questions/comments, despite them truly begging not to be answered.

1. I am unfamiliar with Lee Stroble, but am quite well versed in the work of the likes of William Lane Craig and Dinesh D'Souza. As for the rather accusatory nature of the second component of your question, I was raised a Southern Baptist in the
deep American south. Until the age of about 12, I was unaware that people could be non-religious, and was quite embarrassed when somebody had to define "atheist" for me at age 13. My conversion, you could say, was years of scientific education chipping away at the gospel story, the development of free-thought and individuality, and perhaps a dash of rebellion stemming from a childhood of repression. Needless to say, I have known both sides, being no choice of my own, and I have made my decision.

2. That depends. In what form would God appear? Were I to experience voices in my head, or some ethereal feeling of transcendency, then a lapse into insanity would be my diagnosis. If, however, it could be shone that some evidence, such as a recording or video of the event, could be made and confirmed outwardly, then I would happily turn back to my faith.

3. This seems not a question, but a statement, and quite a damning one at that. The devil is responsible for all those who deviates from God's plan. So Satan gave me a brain and free will and an individual ability to make my own decisions, and yet still be able to live a moral life without the Great Father? I've never considered Satanism, but devil-worship sounds awfully... emancipating.

4. "Yet he still backed down by sacrificing his only son to pay for our sins." This statement is common among the flock, but it has always raised a postulation in my mind: what did I do? Jesus was surely not crucified for my sins; I didn't do anything wrong. But of course, humans are made wretches, born in sin and destitution and grime, and all are responsible for the crimes of the past. Additionally, the idea of God sacrificing his son sounds positively immoral, but is of course not the only Biblical example of a father essentially commandeering his son into the redemption-by-death business.

Debate Round No. 4


"For example, thousands of species survived the heat-death of the planet following the asteroid-extinction of the dinosaurs."
Really the reason why they survived is because they were small animals that can dig underground for protection and to cool down. They were also warm-blooded animals unlike the dinosaurs.
I wasn't talking about animals that have adapted to their environments. I'm talking about cells that have somehow been created not at the perfect temp but a higher temperature which is impossible.

Yes, Mars has ice capped poles and Triton has ice cover with water. Yet have we found life yet? Even thpugh many are talking about colonizing Mars. Even though the moon has solid oxygen in its soils so beck in the 80s and 90s many thought we would have colonized the moon by now? Yet we must colonize Mars? First?
Both arguments need time to finally support their answers like to find life out 'there' or to see the One, and Only.
Even though Con has basically proved along with me that we can see many planets but none have life.

"The(space)Guardian Science section estimates the number of habitable planets within our minuscule galaxy as 2 billion."

This is sadly just an estimation. I heard one 'goldilocks' planet in every galaxy as well. But this states that basically we should have a galaxy like Star Wars or Spore. Though we have great technology to even see a Black Hole in the middle of our galaxy and yet, no life.

The chances of being born and and the way you were and the universe's birth is completely impossible whatsoever. So yes, believe your Cave Men ancesters that their is a god.

Is a god's theory really that bad? I mean if you think about it: humans live to have a hero or idol. From the old: Hercules, Paris, Perseus, and Helen. To the new: Percy Jackson, Katniss Everdeen, Popstars, singers, actors. . .
Yet have you noticed without a god these days there is more crime? It is the 'norm' for men to masterbate even though it is beyond immoral. Singers singing songs about drugs, alcohol, sex, love, late night partying. Kids getting what they want and not lifting a finger much for their parents and talking back to their parents. Maybe because even these days Christians are looking slightly the different direction from god.
Back then, when we had good religion in the household and good church pograms. Kids didn't act like idiots, adults didn't take that much drugs (other than if they had no good water source), churches didn't have pedophiles as priests. Tell me wrong that people were stupid back then with religion just like we are today. Religion made schools, hospitals, told people right from wrong and stabilized functioning working societies that lasted hundreds of generations.


I thank my opponent for their closing statements.

Temperature of the Earth

I'm sorry, I simply cannot accept the argument that the temperature was too high to create life as valid. Despite maybe 20 minutes of research on my part, I cannot seem to come up with one source that reciprocates the claim. While a reasonable temperature may be necessary to maintain life, there are no known limits on the temperature for abiogenesis. Additionally, did temperature really disprove the idea of a God, I suspect scientists would have thought of that. We know that life doesn't have a "perfect temp.'; in fact, the conditions microorganisms can survive in are astounding. (1) An interesting try, but next time I would request my adversary to post a source for their claim.

Other Life in the Universe?

My opponent gravely misunderstands the point I was making here. If life was created by mere chance, as I maintain it was, then that process would be so impossibly unlikely, and should not be a common instance. If, however, life rose from the graciousness of a deity, then we would expect life to be much more common. The fact that the human race is yet to identify alien life supports an atheistic word view, because it reveals how rare life truly is, thus suggesting that happy accident only happened once.

The point does not change with the goldilocks planets. Despite billions of planets in our galaxy with the conditions and correct proximity from their sun for life, and despite the millions of planets viewed and labeled, not one shows any substantial sign of life. Abiogenesis is too unlikely to have happened more than once or twice, and so far, the universe shows that.

The Moral State of Pop Culture
This is in no way an argument for the existence of God, but nevertheless I will address it. Do not ever be duped into believing that society is worse off then it used to be, during a more devout time. Actually, Pro, crime rates have dropped significantly, and continue to every decade. My opponent condemns the "immorality" of masterbation, sex, drug, alcohol, love (what?), and yet fails to demonstrate or explain how any of these things are immoral. I'll confess (not in a spiritual way) to enjoying quite a few of these things, and see nothing inherently or innately wrong with any of them.

Indeed, i'll grant my opponent that the past has featured "good religion", in that everyone was very religious. However, saying one is religious in no way connotes that they are good. Keep in mind, 120 years ago homosexuals could be executed or sent to labor camps for their, I suppose, crime. And, one last thing: religion didn't make society. People made society.

I enjoyed this debate, and may the best man win.

Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Here is another on Are Humans Just Another Primate (Ape).
By Robert Sapolsky, who is a big hero of mine.
I love his lectures, as he is an Absolutely Brilliant Scientist and Teacher.

It's extremely Educational.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Here are some opposing arguments to Christian Theology.

Why the "There is no Purpose for Life Without God" argument is Fallacious.

Why "The Creationists Probability Arguments against Life starting from Abiogenesis (life from chemicals) are Fallacious.
This is Lee Strobel's favorite argument, The Junkyard Tornado Argument by Fred Hoyle.
That a cell forming from chance is like a Fully Functional Jumbo Jet being constructed by a Tornado.
It has since become known as Hoyle's Fallacy, as it is extremely Fallacious.

Understand these and it will give you a great start in debating against Atheists, as you will know much of their arguments and sources.
You may even use these sources to help you play Devils Advocate and argue as an Atheist/Agnostic.
Here is a Skeptics list of Logical Fallacies, which could also be useful in Debates.

Here is a Funnier Version of why the Probability Argument Fails.
Here is a send up of Kent Hovind, LOL.

He uses the same Odds that you quoted.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
No, it wasn't your whole argument and it wasn't the reason for my vote neither.
But it played a big part in how you approached your debate.
When you construct an argument, you should research the opposite side to the argument.
I could see by your arguments that you have not done this, thus you left yourself open and unprepared for your opponent's rebuttals.
Had you studied the opposing arguments to your statements, you would not only construct better statements, but be prepared to rebut their rebuttals with better logic.
Debating is all about being prepared for their comebacks/rebuttals.
You have to be able to think like your opposition.
This is why I should play Devils advocate for a few debates as in trying to think like my opponent, I will have a better understanding of how to defeat such thinking.
Maybe you could do the same and argue that God is Not Real while I argue that God is Real.
Going devils advocate is a great learning tool.
It will sharpen up your knowledge of the other side and your debating skills at the same time.
Posted by ben671176 2 years ago
That wasn't even my whole argument.
Posted by ben671176 2 years ago
Your entire vote was wrong, can you see the past? Or do you have a link to someone talking about our ancesters sex habits? All I saw was you belittling me.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Using that Probability nonsense will lose you votes every time.
Most people can see through the probability fallacy.
There are likely trillions of Earth like Planets in the Universe.
So that automatically reduces the odds down to less than somebody winning Lotto and guess what? somebody wins lotto at least every month.
We just happen to be a lucky planet of those trillions.
Michael Behe is also Fallacious, that blind man in the desert nonsense is corny and Dumb.
He is just bitter because everybody in the rational/science world knows his Irreducible Complexity argument is Rubbish.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Ben671176: There is no way you can win a debate with those arguments.
They are extremely fallacious, you really need better material to work with.
Lee Strobel is only a good source for Jokes.
If it was a comedy debate, Strobel's fallacies would get you some laughs from any Intelligent Audience.

Your misconceptions of the past are extremely naive.
Just as many if not a greater percentage of men masturbated in the past, only they were less open about it, so nothing has changed there, and since we are just Primates (apes) it doesn't really matter as it is natural anyway, even for apes.
Same with pedophile priests, they existed and were never punished in the Old Days, because the Law in those days avoided persecuting priests, and the Church kept pedophilia hidden, and the victims kept quiet, as the churches were considered as above the law, so children were whipped if they spoke up and told that it was God's punishment.

You know nothing about the ugliness of the past and how Christianity massacred millions over the years.
So you had better do some learning if you want to win any debates.
Choose something you know about.
History, Evolution and Reality are not your strong points.
And forget Lee Strobel, as he is a Fallacious Nutjob of a Liar.
All his books are full of stupid misconceptions and Lies.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
@ Ben671176: You still don't get it.
If your parents took longer to have sex or decided to go to the toilet first, likely a different sperm might have beaten the sperm that you came from.
If the sperm that gave you half your genetics was beaten in the race to the egg by any of the other 10,000+ sperm, you would not exist.
If your father ejaculated earlier or later than he did at that time, you would not exist.
That is how fickle your probability of existing was at the time.
All it would have taken is for another of those thousands of sperm, for whatever reason to beat the one that you came from and you would never have existed.
If he gave one less or one more spurt than he did, you would never have existed.
Every sperm has a different genetic blueprint, a different sperm and the resulting human would not be you.
Posted by ben671176 2 years ago
God didn't tell my parents to have sex, he gave them the resources to do so. Reproductive cells and organs. He gave me the chance at life that many other didn't (other sperm cells). Yes rape is a problem though are you blaming god for human's sins? Rape isn't caused by god but by the devil. God only creates life. He does not torture people for nothing like rape victims are. Think about it:
1. God is not only Good but Judgmental.
2. Without God how can people with cursed lives be avenged from those who hurt them? Do you think a rapist should just get life in prison? Forcing people to pay to keep him alive? Is that really punishment? Sitting in a cage like an animal? Or actually getting the consequences that they actually deserve.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
I suppose God does not play Dice is of relevance here.

Probability is a human perception and measurement.
Thus probability is entirely Subjective, thus created by humans.
Using a perception created by humans to prove God which is also a perception made by humans is rather amusing.
LOL :-D~
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by SocialistAtheistNutjob 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Grammar: There were some redundancies in Pro's arguments. Convincing Arguments: Con made many claims that went relatively undisputed, and Pro made some false/unsupported claims as evidence. Sources: Pro made many claims and did not provide a source for those claims, thus nullifying their legitimacy. Con put a source for almost all claims.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years 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 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: Pro did not put up any sensible argument for the topic, instead produced fallacies about Evolution and modern life. Yes, the same percentage of people masturbated in the old days as they do now, only they were more secretive, Pedophile priests also existed, but it was swept under the carpet by both the church and the law, as priests were once considered above the law. Pro's arguments had insufficient sources and what sources Pro did use, were fallacious. Pro really needs an Education, hopefully he took note of Con's higher wisdom and knowledge.