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

It is up to theists to prove that god exists. No exceptions. None.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 8/15/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 892 times Debate No: 103545
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (1)




Until god waves his rosey red flag, he's a forgery. How can you prove something that is unproved and something that is unknown and something that has never been seen? What do you look for to prove this unknown commodity of non existence? Um no. Sorry. The burden of proof is always upon those who claim "let there be light" or "let the truth be known" because it is they that makes those claims. And we sit around and laugh with glee and the mint cookies on the shelves. There’s absolutely no evidence for god. None. There’s no tests that can prove god. None. So how do you even know god exists? Through faith? What? What kind of god, especially the god according to the bible with his truly bloated superior ego complex would ever NOT show himself and present evidence instead of having his so-called creation of man to rely on faith? Also if this god is god, he would not rely on faith and he could simply come on down here and---talk---to---us and the bible which is in TEXT form, in which no god would EVER use, the worst form of communication possible, with copies upon copies and translations upon translations, with no updates in at least 2,000 years, and no possible way to trace it back to the original, so EVERYBODY misinterprets this so-called holy book, no exceptions, none, so this bible would be and is a useless pile of scrapping without proof of anything. If god is god he can simply come on down here and talk to us rather than using faith or text. That’s evidence in which there is none to be proved. So until this so called god presents any kind of evidence, he’s a sham, a fake and a forgery. Also if you have the slightest whimsical doubts within your beliefs in this god in which you cannot prove exists, then you are an atheist.

So the rules are simple for this debate... you as the Con MUST prove that your god according to the bible exists.



I like to thank my opponent for the chance to debate him. I have seen my opponent debate previously on issues like the one before us. He has been rude to his opponents. I hope that my opponent respects that this is a debate on the exchange of ideas of why Christians believe what they believe. If my opponent behaves in a manner that is not consistent with the wanting to have a fruitful discussion, then I would reluctantly leave this debate. Before we can prove anything exists we need to establish criteria. What does it mean to prove the existence or nonexistence of something. I will now let my opponent's own words of establish his criteria. Lets examine his opening statement. My opponent states "There"s absolutely no evidence for god. None. There"s no tests that can prove god. None. So how do you even know god exists?" My opponent has made a positive claim that there is no evidence for God. This means that he has to prove this assertion. Also from this assertion I could conclude that he is an empiricist which means that relies on the the scientific method to establish truth. The scientific method has a lot of philosophical problems such as Hume's problem of induction, the reliability of senses and reasoning and the fallacy of asserting the consequent. (if P then Q, Q therefore P). Evidence and proof are not the same thing, yet there are lots of atheists the say that an abundance of evidence means that a theory is a fact. I would ask my opponent what his starting point or axiom is for his epistemology. How does my opponent know that his senses and reasoning are reliable to know that if something is "proven". Wow does my opponent account for the uniformity of nature the main assumption of scientific inquiry? The Bible as the starting point of our epistemology gives us sufficient reason to trust our senses, reasoning and uniformity of nature which I will explain in the course of this debate. I pray that this debate will be fruitful and edifying to believers and unbelievers alike. I now invite my opponent to respond.
Debate Round No. 1


Let’s get something out in the open and very clear here… when you show absolutely no intelligence nor any edumacation, as most of my opponents do not have and yet they pretend they do and they thus invent excuses for in which they have absolutely no knowledge upon, as you have clearly done, they, like you absolutely 100% they deserve to be insulted, degraded and dehumanized. You will learn that should you ever get to college. Now if you do that to your friends and loved ones, POOF, you will soon have no friends and loved ones. If you do that to your teachers, POOF, instant F and they will not even think twice. So why should I or anyone deal with that type utter crap when its so utterly so cheap and easily see through? I won’t. You need to provide actual evidence rather than gullibility because if you do, then you will get the septic tank of lard headed your way and rightly so. That’s because I can think, reason, rationalize, use common sense, and use logic whereas god, religion and the bible requires none. OK ready?

And right off the bat you go down the Idiot's Delight end of things… “Before we can prove anything exists…” No you need to step up and start point blank why and how your god exists. But I shall follow your ball breaker moonshine. Now I did fully establish criteria. Strike 1.

Lets examine his opening statement. My opponent states "There"s absolutely no evidence for god. None. There"s no tests that can prove god. None. So how do you even know god exists?" How do you test for something that on no way has ever been proven? What exact tests would those be for the untested? Great! Now’s your chance for you to take the floor and shine brightly. You go right ahead tell me or anyone what exactly those tests would be and faith and the bible are NOT tests. So no. Regardless BOP is always upon you. Its your BOP to prove “something”, “anything” in which you cannot do since YOU make the claim that your god exists which is MUST be “something”, “anything” according to you. Strike 2. OK here you go. Since you think you are so smart and Tracie Harris does know one helluva lot better than you… 12:15 all the way up until the end. Have fun.

Now my opponent gets into “truth”. Well as stated, there’s no truth in faith, nor the text of the bible. So obviously that is “true” about HIS god especially since all of that nonsense can easily be done away with and this god of HIS can simply come on down here and talk to us. That’s truth. That’s evidence in which my opponent clearly has none.

Evidence and proof ARE the same thing. Like I stated I REALLY can’t stand it when people such as my opponent makes flat breaded EXCUSES to cover up for something and pretend like they actually know something about a certain subject and having knowledge upon in which they really don’t and yet they try to pretend that they do. Sorry. Evidence: 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something;ground for belief; proof. Proof: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, orto produce belief in its truth. 2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have? 3. the act of testing or making trial of anything;test; trial: to put a thing to the proof. 4. the establishment of the truth of anything;demonstration. 5. Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight. 6. the effect of evidence in convincing the mind. Strike 3.

“yet there are lots of atheists the say that an abundance of evidence means that a theory is a fact.” Oh absolutely NOT you simpleton scab as proved above from a slaughtered kittens bark who clearly doesn’t know AT ALL what he is squawking about from his chatterbox. But then again YOU are only 20 years old, scarcely out of his batter's box to churn butter one time after a single pitch from the burping process. And you wonder why I insult you? Um no. Any good scientist and atheist will ALWAYS state “I don’t know” which is something that are true terrorist words to you christians because you pretend that you know EVERYTHING because that’s what your holy blank black hole bible is for. Strike 4

Now as far as god, religion and the bible, I never stated what “is” proven now did I? I clearly stated what “is not” proven because there's nothing from “god” that is proven. DO NOT try to change the subject. christians like you are so good at that because they, like you, have 0 answers and are totally incapable of not only saying “I don’t know”, and cannot stay on subject. Strike 5

Just how are you doing thus far? Why its a grade of an absolute 0. That’s because if you or anyone could actually prove your god, well let’s take you, you’d be the only quadrillionaire on the planet. Your god would be the only religion. His laws would be the only laws. And because hey they would be the only laws, oh probably at least 80% or higher of this planet’s population would become extinct. Oh but wait, you haven’t read your bible and your god’s laws and his wonderful deliberate hateful genocides especially against children in which he truly hates. That is so painfully obvious.

“The Bible as the starting point of our epistemology…” Well if you are talking about “faith” in which you probably are, then you’ve utterly flat chested rubbery failed.

Now you go back to your study hall cubical, get some actual evidence and prove that your god exists in which in absolutely no way in round one have you done. You haven’t even begun with the first needle in a cobweb of 1 million stitches.



I like to thank my opponent for responding. I must say that my opponent's response of a typical angry atheist who reads Richard Dawkins and comes out thinking that he is the most intelligent person in the world and his responses lack substance and are full of insults. He does respond to a few points that I made. I will respond and keep my laughter to a minimum. I asked him where he gets his foundation for truth, reliability of his senses, reasoning, uniformity of nature and logic. He does not answer except to ridicule mine. My opponent says evidence and proof are the same thing. As I already pointed out, this presents a fallacy in logic called asserting the consequent. Perhaps my opponent is not familiar with the fallacy, so I will try to explain it. This fallacy occurs when you assert one cause for an observed effect when in reality there could be a multitude of causes. (If P,then Q, Q therefore P) An example of this is lets say we walked outside and we observe the grass is wet. We conclude that it rained last night. In the argument form it would sound like this, "If it rained last night then the grass would be wet, the grass is wet, therefore it rained last night." There are a multitude of causes for the grass being wet. Maybe the neighbors had their sprinklers on last night, a fire hydrant exploded or (philosophical skeptic's option) you are being deceived into thinking the grass is wet when in reality it is not. He responds to my assertion saying that there are lots of atheists the say that an abundance of evidence means that a theory is a fact. This is simply my experience having dealt with lots of atheists since about 2014. "Any good scientist and atheist will ALWAYS state "I don"t know" which is something that are true terrorist words to you christians because you pretend that you know EVERYTHING because that"s what your holy blank black hole bible is for. " Well first, before you try to insult me, please use better grammar. He was nice enough to give me a grade on how I am doing in this debate. I thank him for that. I want to respond with my grade. Grammar: This needs needs work. If you were in elementary school, I would give you a passing grade. Debate Conduct: Your response has an over usage of ad hominem attacks and just plain insults. I would give you a failing grade. You could work on that for this and future debates. Debate Substance: You did not have many thought out responses I have to fail you on that too unfortunately. Overall, I believe that my opponent fails his first response. I'm sure he could do better next response.
Debate Round No. 2


Oh believe me, the typical christian like you are a lot more angry than atheists. After all, atheists have nothing to be angry about and you believe in an angry god who has freely admitted it. Gee gosh golly, go figure. Awe snookums thinks my debate has lack of substance well boo hoo hoo what an insult. I am whimpering back all the way to my gasoline all over myself and then running into a burning collapsing building. I mean are you serious with your bloated ego trying to calculate within your pea shooter of a shot brain but of course lacking the grey matter during a bootsauce din din get together? Um no I don’t read Richard Dawkins. Would you like to try again? And this time try to better your cats WOOF inside your purse for all you are worth. Gosh golly, if I didn’t respond to YOUR points and I didn’t address to what YOU think is on subject and what YOU believe I should have attacked but didn’t, then oh well, its your loss. That’s because I am a lot smarter, more edumacated and intelligent than you, and I will always know a lot more about your god, religion and bible than you --ever--- will. If you do not think so, then that entirely YOUR problem. YOU deal with it. I’m not here to please an arrogant little prince charming spin the bottle brat like you. And if you don’t like it, leave. I---don’t---care. Now let’s get one thing shimmering and spotlessly clear… It doesn’t matter to me if I respond to anything you state because what was stated in the first round by myself is completely airtight and you failed miserably to try to poke holes into it and we both know it.
“I asked him where he gets his foundation for truth, reliability of his senses, reasoning, uniformity of nature and logic.” Which has 0 to do with the subject matter. Nothing. So once again it shall be ignored. If you can honestly tie it into the existence of your god and proof of him, you’ve got serious problems and you would be committed into a mental institution for the rest of your life and wear moldy diapers to prevent your brain from leaking.
And then my idiot opponent once again brings up “proof” and “evidence”. Now I didn’t state, deliberately, that what I threw at him were dictionary definitions of the two words. You’d figure that my so-called opponent, if he were to have any intelligence whatsoever would have been able to have figured that easy one out. Nah. Um no my opponent cannot explain it because he cannot weed himself through dictionary definitions. Wow. What a dolt.

If idiot conversations like these are to continue from my opponent I will end our debate for obvious reasons.

So thus I scrolled on down to “I don’t know”. Let’s see what my opponent has to say about it. If its derogatory, its bye bye for this debate because clearly my incompetent competitor has no idea as to what his screwball comedy knee-locks is gone dead brain. My dark horse side kick claims he’s dealt with lots of atheists since 2014? Well I’ve been doing this for 42+ years and have talked with roughly 25,000. So your bragging rights go right down the clogged pipes. Wow are you pathetic. And yet you still believe in this so-called god who hates children according to the bible and you cannot even prove that this god even exists.
Oh and btw, I---don’t---care about my grammar because I fully get that it stinks and I also get that my insults are one-of-a-kind and I’ll take me over you any day of the year because you are dull and boring. I’m happy. You can’t say that. And if you do, you’d 100% be flat out lying.
Oh so he has nothing to say about “I don’t know.” OK I will leave it at that.
Now with a very big DUH. Do you really think I take to heart about debate “conduct”? Its completely worthless. The only thing that matters is “Who made more convincing arguments?”



I like to thank my opponent for the interesting exchange. Unfortunately, his last response did not respond to my rebuttal. Instead there were more insults directed at me. In this debate, he has not shown the willingness to have a respectful debate. I must say that I am disappointed in this debate. I have had great discussions with numerous atheists and a lot of them were great exchanges. My opponent has shown me that his intention for all the "debates" that he engages in is to slander demean Christianity. He is not interested in a respectful debate and dialogue. If you reading this debate and want to engage in a respectful discussion and debate with me, don't hesitate. If you want to show the kind of debate attitude that my opponent has shown me, please don't waste my time. In conclusion, if you want to experience the hope that you can only find in Christ go to If you want me to be a guest speaker go to If you want to debate me on another format other than go to
God bless!
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
>Reported vote: Khons// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Conduct, S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I decided this not only because all that pro is doing is harassing con, he also has multiple grammar issues, because helluva is not even a word that you should use a debate, there is so much controversy if God exist or does not, but only using sources from your side of the argument is not a good idea, you should also see it from your contenders point of view, that way you have a more reliable argument.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to examine specific points made by both debaters and determine the winner based on a comparison of those points. Generalizing about what one side did is not sufficient. (2) S&G is insufficiently explained. The voter is required to do more than simply state that there are grammatical mistakes made by one side " it must be clear how those impeded the voter"s ability to understand that side"s argument. This does not clarify how that was the case. (3) Conduct is insufficiently explained. While the voter may indeed be correct that harassment occurred in this debate, the voter must point to specific examples.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
That should say "Reason for non-removal"
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 points to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Pro calls Con a "Simpleton scab" and admits to insulting Con In round two. This is poor conduct.

[*Reason for removal*] While I understand that this particular voter has cast similar votes on several debates that one of these debaters has participated in, that is not sufficient reason for removal. The vote meets the standards, explaining why he decided to award conduct based on what was stated in the debate. If the debater(s) wish to exclude this voter in the future, they may include a rule stating that he may not vote.
Posted by Spud 11 months ago
Well, at least it wasn't "100 reasons why Evolution is so Stupid." Creation Minute really isn't any better though. Eric is just as idiotic as his father is; all Eric does is repeat the nonsense Kent spewed forth all those years ago.
Posted by Spud 11 months ago
I've got to say. What is that link that wmickas gave at the end of debate? Ive just took a looksie over that website and articles on said website. 6 kinds of evolution? Really? Kent Hovind? Thats who you're getting info from? Bahahaha. I'm on my phone atm so can't click on the Youtube link, but if that video is 100 reasons why evolution is stupid," I'd crack a rib laughing. Why the hell would you end off with such a bad source?
Posted by backwardseden 11 months ago
@John_C_1812 - Well I really don't know where you get those nicely needy ties of railroad tracks like 400, 11, 500. I guess you like to wear seat belts for most of your life when santa rings his reindeer sleigh in desperation for an excuse of all excuses. That's because I'll tell you something... I've been doing this for 42+ + years and have talked with roughly 25,000 and no one has come up with the gifted smiles that you have some up with the better a Sunday brunch with. Its not OK "to have a religious belief outside that basic principle because religion and god gives false hope with all of god's hatred, especially when according to the bible when he squirts out his anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, and the laughter among squinty eyes of jealousy of all things and not to forget all of his evil in which this thing has knowingly freely admitted to. Yet gullibility through ridiculous faith and texts rather than actual evidence remain strong. It really goes to show just how stupid people really are. So it is absolutely reasonable to 100% know that god does not exist until proof/ evidence presents itself in which case at this time there is absolute 0 of. Thankfully the mind for some is stronger than gullibility with an education and intelligence for in which the christian has none.
Oh but god is the issue. And when you capitalize that miserable things name, especially when he hates children for jeez sakes, it shows a sign of respect. When you commit atrocities such as murdering babies, children and pregnant mothers for no reason, commit countless genocides for no reason, loves war, loves raped women, hates children etc etc etc then in no way does this so-called superior ego god complex deserve any kind of respect. And this so-called god according to the bible IS religion. You really don't want to get into the definitions of religion and faith. Its a losing cause.
Posted by John_C_1812 11 months ago
GOD is an axiom of numbers 400, 11, 500
It is okay to have a religious belief outside that basic principle. However it is unreasonable to not agree that GOD does in fact exist. It has been proved as fact and has representation.

It really is no longer GOD that is the issue, it is opinion of religious representation that is in question.
It is up to the theist t prove that religious representation exists, No expectations. None.
Posted by backwardseden 11 months ago
@skipsaweirdo - Really? According to what imbecile? You? How would you know? What grade of plastic
yeast infection resurrection poisonous meds in your sludge farm cabinet have you graduated from to make such a statement? If true, in answer to your huggable beddy tear question, and you could see YOUR god, then you'd be the only quadrillionaire on the planet, because absolutely no one, and I do mean no one else can. YOUR god would be the ONLY religion in practice. And that means that nearly 80% or better of this planet's population would become extinct because people simply cannot follow god's ridiculous snot meat laws as he loves his genocides and truly hates children. Oh but wait by golly gosh darned gee whiz, not only can't you prove that YOUR god cannot be seen, you cannot prove he even exists, so obviously that means he cannot be seen. And what stupid god would insist on faith rather than simply talking to man. Now say "duh" for your cheapened camera that blows your silly pity towards your bumbling panicking picnicing lunch while the ants devour your coke on crank crack cockroach brain. Oh and oh yeah, did I ---ever--- state that there are NOT beings that are all knowing? It ain't god according to the fodder fiddler flapping yammering lice ridden urine bible that's for sure.
Now grow some pistachio's.
Oh and oh yeah darn it Tracie Harris knows better than your wind garb 12:15 all the way until the end.

Btw, rock music is nowhere near dead. And it has nothing to do with popular sellout bands and artists that you listed. I mean really, how truly pathetic. Some of what I listen to is so highly original that you would not even be able to tolerate it. Oh and btw, I do not know if you know but Deep Purple, Alice Cooper and Edgar Winter are on tour right now. Also when the Deep Purple tour is done Dixie Dregs will reunite. Santana will tour in Oct. King Crimson will tour in Oct.
Posted by backwardseden 11 months ago
@NDECD1441 - Oh I fully get that. The self appointed prophet is far too stupid to get his own barfing realism play-duh sand-which for the planet of the oops where did he park his Number 2 except in a meat locker for his laundered pain thermometer while watching reruns of Laverne and Shirley.
Posted by smurfy101 11 months ago
@surgeon, that argument assumes god's existence and is therefore begging the question. Proof can come in the form of logic, imperical evidence, etc.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 11 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro calls Con a "Simpleton scab" and admits to insulting Con In round two. This is poor conduct.