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

It is Possible to Prove God Exists

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,464 times Debate No: 35493
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Pretty simple for my first debate back. I'm not going to be trying too hard so if you want an easy win against me go ahead and accept.

The resolution is pretty simple. I'm saying that it's not possible to prove that god (whatever god you want to prove, it's kinda irrelevant to the point but y'know...), exists with 100% certainty. My opponent, whomever they may be, will be arguing that it is possible to prove that God exists with 100% certainty.

Let me be clear about one thing real fast. In no way, shape, or form am I at all asking the question of "Does God Exist". Please do not take this debate arguing for God's existence. Rather, I am asking the meta-question of before we even ask if God exists, that is it even possible to prove that he does (because if we can't prove he exists why even bother asking if he does in the first place).

Standard rules apply. I shouldn't have to go into this.



I accepted this debate because sweetbreeze requested it and this debate looked fun.

I thank my opponent for starting this debate, and I thank sweetbreeze for bringing it to my attention.

It is worth mentioning that, just ten minutes ago, I subscribed to the theory that Con is supporting. I admit, I believed that belief in a God was based completely on faith.

Then, the philosophical question was asked. As soon as philosophy gets involved, my mind starts firing on at least four different levels. This intense session of overanalyzation has caused me to change my beliefs about whether or not it is possible to provide proof of a diety ("god").

So, to me, this is proving a philosophy about the possibility and conceivabliity of relating the metaphysical and spiritual to the physical and observable universe.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting.
My argument is fairly short and easy to understand (no, this isn't going to be one of those rounds you have to scroll down for five minutes to read half of what I typed).

In order for us to understand God, we must understand that he's a being that transcends our senses. We cannot see him, hear him, touch him, taste him (get out of the gutter), or smell him. We have no way to perceive his immediate existence around us (unless you're one of those people who claimed to have a vision from him, but JUST BEAR WITH ME HERE).

Because it's impossible for us to sense him in the traditional sense, we have to reply on reasoning to deduce his existence. Much like I can deduce the fact that there should still be chocolate milk in the fridge (because I am the only person in my house who drinks it and that I have yet to finish off the jug), there are different acclaimed ways to deduce the existence of god being probable (KCA, TA, MA, etc etc).

But this is the problem with trying to deduce something: we only describe the situation as PROBABLE. While I can certainly believe that there still should be chocolate milk left for me in the fridge, there is nothing stopping the other members of my family from having finished it off before I realized it was happening. Much like the KCA or MA can say that it's probable for God to exist, there's nothing stopping one of the premises to be incorrect or flawed in some way.

So if our five normal senses aren't enough, and deducing doesn't do it all the way, how can we prove for absolute certainty that God exists?

Trick question; we can't. In order to prove that God exists, which is a being that transcends all lmethods of discovery, we'd have to be omniscient and all-knowing of all things in order to say for certain whether or not he existed.

To put it simply, we'd have to be God to say that God existed with 100% certainty. And, sadly, since we are not God, we cannot say such.



This is so bizarre; I would have said the exact same thing a week ago.

My arguments are simple:

1) Gravity certainly exists 100%
2) Gravity is illogical
3) God can exist 100% certainty

1) People do not recognize the world as existing without a god
2) The evidence, to them, shows that the god exists
3) Therefore, based on perception, it is 100% proven that the a god exists.
Argument 1:
1) Gravity certainly exists 100%
My opponent likely agrees.

2) Gravity is illogical
Believe it or not, gravity is not fully explained. Sure, we can observe gravity (what goes up comes down). However, science doesn't have all the laws of gravity figured out.

We don't have a theory for Quantum Gravity. The singularity found at the center of a blackhole is not understood. Science does not have an explanation of how gravity works in an infinitely small space.

The singularity at the center of the Big Bang is not fully understood. Quantum Mechanics cannot account for sub-subatomic gravity.

String Theorists are called to work on these problems and to hopefully create a Unified Theory of Everything. So far, they have not succeeded.

When Albert Einstein saw the possibility for singularities to exist inside his model of gravity, he claimed that Blackholes don't exist. Since the '90s, it has been a recognised fact that blackholes exist. Science has been confused eversince.

God can exist 100%
As you've seen, gravity does not work with the same logic that most scientific phenomenons do. Gravity is completely fine on the Macro-scale, but when you get to basic levels, there is no consensus on how gravity exists.

Gravity, unlike a god, exists even though it cannot be explained. Or perhaps, gravity exists on the large-scale, and not on the small-scale. Maybe a god keeps things together on the small scale.

Until there is a proven theory, God is gravity. This theory is not disproven.

That is not an Argument of Ignorance. My point is, God existing as gravity is as valid a hypothesis as gravity exists because neither possibility is completely understood or disproven.

Why is it that God doesn't exist? You could say that gravity is observable. I myself haven't observed anything of the sort. The closest thing I've observed to that is something falling down.

Now, theres this God-dude; the guy down the street says he observes it. I am as inclined to believe him as I am to believe you about gravity existing.

But gravity exits, does it not? I'm done pretending like I don't believe in gravity. My point was: if gravity is proven, why is god not?
Argument 2

1) People do not recognise the world as having no god
My opponent probably agrees that some people believe in a god.
2) To them, evidence points to the existence of a god
This is fairly obvious. They believe that the evidence supports them. A plethora of creationists believe "God" to be a scientific truth.
3) Based on their perception, God is 100% proven
Humans are creatures of perception. They perceive that their views are true, obviously. The question becomes: "Are their perceptions invalid?". The answer, I say is no.
I think that their perceptions are as valid as yours. You could claim their perceptions are wrong, but how do we know that yours aren't?

Because of ones perceptions it CAN be 100% proven that God exists to at least one person.
Debate Round No. 2


Zaradi forfeited this round.


My opponent has forfeited. How sad.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Kumquatodor 4 years ago
I know; it was terrible! I regret it.
Posted by DudeStop 4 years ago
What a stupid argument.
Posted by sweetbreeze 5 years ago
Let Kumquatodor accept this challenge.
No votes have been placed for this debate.