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

Is god real?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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: 4 months ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,018 times Debate No: 113980
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (59)
Votes (1)




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
59 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KostasT.1526 2 weeks ago
@conservative. Justice
I would be glad to continue the debate if you are willing to do so. I believe that the position of Con could have been supported better.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 months ago
Posted by Dinis 3 months ago
Ok, sorry, I"m taking finals. Will get back later
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 months ago
and do make it able to hold as many words as possible, because i do intend to present a very conclusive argument for evolutionary theory.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 months ago
you can make the debate when your ready.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 months ago
thats fine with me
Posted by Dinis 3 months ago
Evolution will have a good amount of information to work with.

Agree? We can go with what you want too.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 months ago
a debate on evolution or abiogenieses?
Posted by Dinis 3 months ago
Okay, I"ll try my best to research.

But, would you prefer to make this into a debate with 8000 characters instead, plus being in a debate actually notifies me when someone comments but comments on debates don"t notify me.

If you wish we could do that for efficiency.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 4 months ago
On the whole nucleotide thing, scientists were able to create a special ribozyme that could actually build ribonucleotides from the materials whiten its environment, and this was not just simply created, this was made via evolution by subjecting the ribozymes to random mutation, and then selecting the most successful per generation, after about ten rounds of this selection, they were able to make highly efficient nucleotide building ribozymes, the simplicity of the experiment suggests that nucleotide building ribozymes may have been one of the first ribozymes to evolve, such a ribozyme would not only give itself the uppermost advantage, but it would increase the amount of ribonucleotides in the environment.

And just for you >
here is the scientific paper
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KostasT.1526 2 weeks 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct-grammar: As far as I am concerned, there is nothing significant enough to result in points being awarded to either side regarding these two categories. Sources: No sources were cited at all. Arguments: The points are awarded to Pro, regardless of mine ideologically agreeing with Con, since the former provided substantial arguments to support their case (see: impossibility of creatio ex nihilo [R1,2], god not being subject to the known universal laws [R2]). Despite mine not being convinced that these arguments are logically sound, the reason behind my aforementioned decision was the absence of arguments from the side of Con, other than the claim that the laws of the universe are not able to allow for the existence of god [R1], which was quickly refuted [R1,2] and the argument that god can either be equated with nothing or must have come from nothing [R2,3], the reasoning behind which was evidently shown to be no less fallacious [R2,3].