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

Is god real?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/16/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 1 hour ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 345 times Debate No: 113980
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (38)
Votes (0)




As a man of science I say god doesn't exist. The world was made of molecules into new types of molecules into explosions into galaxys into more molecules and so on and so on. God doesn't make sense in science cause molecules can't make super humans (gods) to control us.


As a man of science, you must understand that nothing can come from nothing. One atom cannot create an atom from nothing. Humans do not create chairs, we only manipulate wood and nails. If you have a vast void of absolutely nothing, there is nothing that can possibly come out of that. Nothing can come from nothing.

Nothing can come from nothing
There is something
Something must exist outside of creation that has power of creation, which created everything
We call this thing God

God isn"t made up of particles, he made the particles. I believe in the Big Bang theory, that theory tells us that the universe is not eternal. If it is not eternal then something needs to create it. The thing that created it is called God. That is the simplest proof of God"s existence. That is not talking about if God is good or bad, or if the Christian God or Muslim God is right or wrong, it is only that there is God
Debate Round No. 1


But you just said you cant build something or make it. God can't make anything if nothing made god. Your reasoning doesn't make sense. If humans can't make something, nothing can make god and if we can't make nothing than god cant be real cause nothing can make him.


What you are trying to do is contain God to the rules of our universe. God exists outside of creation he was never created. Something can be real without physical form. For instance iCloud is real even though it doesn"t have a physical manifestation. That"s the thing, since nothing can come from nothing as previously explained, then there has to be something that created it all that existed from all eternity. It is hard to understand. He existed before the universe.
Debate Round No. 2


Your trying to make something that isnt physical exist. Yes apps are not physical but they are something we can actually see. We cant see god at all


Just because we can"t see him doesn"t mean he doesn"t exist.

"Absence of proof is not proof of absence"

As I have stated before, there is no way that something can come from nothing I have yet to see something in response to that from you. God is not created, there must be something OUTSIDE of creation in order to create everything. That is very logical because nothing can be created from nothing. Please see my very first argument.
Debate Round No. 3
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by cole.bonds 17 minutes ago
Nice debate! I'll be back on November 17, 2018, to see who won.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 1 hour ago
So do actually read what I wrote before you respond please.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 1 hour ago

I said to simply place the first atom of it, and the point was to show why the probability argument is a horrible argument, and I think I've presented more then a half argument.
Posted by SHARINGISCARINGg 1 hour ago
Wow. They want EVERYONE on to vote on this. I'll be back at the end of summer to see how this one turns out, lol.
Posted by Dinis 1 hour ago
Okay, no rush. And my lord, over 170 days to vote on this debate?
Posted by SHARINGISCARINGg 1 hour ago
You are the first person I have ever seen that has at least attempted to make half an argument against any of today's Christianity theories. Thank you for not just writing down crap and saying God is fake.

You explained the probability of a pebble being made. You said the probability would be about 1*10^27. But wait, there are over a billion atoms in one pebble. But wait, there are WAY over a billion pebbles in the world. But wait, there are other worlds, and pebbles on those worlds. In fact, there are over a billion worlds that have pebbles on them. (including moons, dwarf planets, etc.) But wait, there are also asteroids literally EVERYWHERE in space that also have pebbles on them. Do you see how high the chances are for all that happening? It is beyond astronomical. It is simply not possible. And that is just pebbles. Think of water, or the exact forces of gravity, or temperatures of each planet, or atmosphere composition, or LIFE. People say that Christianity is a faith-based religion, but the REAL faith goes to the atheists. It must take a lot to believe that.

Next, In order for any of this to happen, there would have to be matter, otherwise the probability would literally be 0. Matter had to come from somewhere, according to science, and yet, science also says that "matter can not be created or destroyed." Again, the faith of atheists astounds me.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 2 hours ago
as for the other stuff you said, i will get back to you on that because i only have so much time in a day to write debates.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 2 hours ago
"10 to the power of 40, at worst, 10 to the power of 390, for even the simplest amino acid to be created at random."

uh, i assume you mean a proper chain of amino acids right? because we have synthesized amino acids a multitude of times, in fact they were what was created in the miller urey experiment.

and the probability argument is bullcrap, let me debunk this.

Lets use the same logic to create a pebble, just an ordinary pepple you find on the edge of a road, but not the whole pepple, just the first atom of it, that would have to place said atom at that place, out of the entire observable universe, the probability is about 1*10^27, yet the pepple is there, what does that mean, that pebbles are so statistically impossible god must have done it? no, it means there is more then just simply probability at work, hence the electromagnetic force.

things happen and react a certain way, probability plays little role at best, for example, if i were to hold a ball in front of you and say, what is the probability that this ball will fall down, instead of any other other possible direction in 3D space, the probability of it falling down is pretty much impossible, yet when i let go of the ball, the ball falls down, over, and over, and over again, this is because reality is more complicated then simple probability.

in fact you can apply probability to pretty much anything, for example you can calculate the probability of the events of this day happening as they did, compare them to all other possibility's for what could have happend, and you will find the probability of today happening the way it did is borderline impossible, this is why the probability argument fails.

Also life didn't start with protein based machinery seen in modern life today.
Posted by Dinis 3 hours ago
Evolution is an incredibly complex concept and many parts of it contradict or hinder itself.

For one, take natural selection. It is the notion that a species would only have its best beings create offspring, for that species to improve as a whole. This means that one species has to improve enough to become its own species.
Then, years later, science has provided evidence detailing that there is heavy mingling between species.
This ultimately damages the idea of natural selection, since it supported the idea that a species betters itself on its own. The mingiling of other species has brought up many questions. When can you count a new species to be a new species?

As well, more scientific study has shown natural selection to be heavily reliant on the varying genetic mutations of DNA to be passed down to its offspring, but at the same time, it has to be beneficial mutations.
Research has shown that a parents offspring"s reaction with the current environment will have a heavy toll on its offspring, usually involving both beneficial and harmful effects. Much of a genetic mutation can come from the reaction stimuli just as random variation would give.
Posted by Dinis 3 hours ago
I can see two main points in your arguing.

One, simply calling the Bible untrue without providing any examples or facts. Whilst I provided several prophecies that came true and you haven"t even answered vaguely, simply stating they are crappy.

Second, you seem to wholly support the notion of evolution, but as true as it sounds, it has no concrete base.

Your expecting me to agree on the fact that at best, it is a one in 10 to the power of 40, at worst, 10 to the power of 390, for even the simplest amino acid to be created at random.

Now, many scientists and biologists had tried answering this obstacle by stating that several amino acids would have been going through this trial in the billions everyday when the Earth began and with its pre weather conditions. But the main downfall to this is its heavy implications of theorizing. There is no observable evidence supporting this claim, and they do the not answer how these amino acids would.

The human DNA is incredibly complex and any minor change can have dramatic ramitifications on the human being. Is it plausible to assume that because a few amino acids came crashing together we would get an incredibly intellectual and sapient being as humans to exist?

I know there are arguments that refute my claims of creationism but there are also plenty that refute evolution.
Evolution may have a well made structure, but without a concrete base your argument can"t stand.
It takes a great deal of faith to believe that humans came here by accident.
No votes have been placed for this debate.