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

Open Debate Challenge

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,072 times Debate No: 46031
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)




So let's get down to this. This is an open challenge based on the following resolutions. Con shall pick the one he likes and begin his contentions in round 2.

(1) Resolution - The Christian God (Yahweh) probably does not exist. (I will be pro)

(2) Resolution - Abortion should remain legal ( I will be Pro)

(3) Resolution - The death penalty should be banned in cases where the crime cannot be proven beyond doubt ( I am pro )

(4) Resolution - User Stalin should be perma banned from DDO ( I am pro )

These are shared BOPS




(1) Rules and guidelines
(2) Opening arguments and contentions
(3) Rebuttals, rebuilding contentions, closing statements


(1) Shall begin his contentions
(2) Rebuttals, rebuilding contentions, and closing statements.
(3) Shall type "no round as agreed upon"


(1) Failure from adversary to type no round as agreed upon in the final round shall result in a full 7 point FF due to him/her having an extra round.
(2) FFS shall result in the loss of a conduct point with multiple FFS possibly resulting in a full 7 point drop at the discretion of the judges
(3) No trolling/semantics
(4) Votes shall be accompanied with a valid RFD


My adversary shall pick one of the resolutions and declare it next round. He shall immediately begin his contentions and follow the outline above.


Very interesting way to start a debate challenge. I will be arguing that the Christian God exists for these reasons:

-Jesus' extistence, resurrection, and divinity have all been documented by SECULAR historians through legitimate hearsay accounts.

-Would His followers die for a lie? Which is more likely: they were ardent to defend the truth, or they let themselves die for a lie?

-How have folks had personal testimonies of witnessing the Christian Lord before their very own eyes? Such as Colton Burpo and Tamera Laroux.

-The watchmaker argument: The complex inner workings of a watch necessitate an intelligent designer. As with a watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the universe, anything complex) necessitates a designer. Who is that designer? By definition, the Lord!
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank con for accepting this debate

His limited response will allow me to keep this short and sweet.

An Impossible Stance

Atheism and Christians share one common issue. The issue is they both claim a positive statement. Atheist claim "God does not exist", Christians claim that "God does exist". The fundamental failure in both of these stances, is that we are discussing something that cannot be tested or proven to be factual.

This is commonly explained through an analogy called Russel's Teapot.

" Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God." [1][2]

This is the most logical way to try and address an argument like this. It is psychically impossible for Christians to claim that they are correct because there is no way to they can be proven wrong. Atheist have the same issue in a similar way. It is impossible to say that they are right because there is no way to prove it either.

No need for Creationism.

This is a simple appeal to Occam's Razor. If we have a working model of how the universe began and was created, why add unnecessary changes to the model that is already working. Through modern science we can clearly see how the universe began, and that it does not need a creator to jump start it.

There are things that are called quantum flotations that can explain how matter and space first began to exist. To first address this question we need to ask can something come from nothing? Let's ask the novel prize winner David Gross

Gross showed that the space between quarks in a proton can produce matter and energy randomly from nothing. They can exist and come into place through quantum fluctuations. So yes something can come from nothing. The next thing we have to address is what type of universe do we live in.

We can live in an open , flat , or closed universe. This is also addressed with curvature. The universe can be Positive, Negative, or Flat.

All three geometries are classes of what is called Riemannian geometry, based on three possible states for parallel lines

never meeting (flat or Euclidean)
must cross (spherical)
always divergent (hyperbolic) [3]

The universe is commonly accepted as a flat universe.

" Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe."[4]

The perfect part about this is that a flat universe yields total energy 0. Which is the only universe that can produce quantum fluctuation and actually spawn random universes into existence. [5]


When determining if something is actually a working model or viable model, there are a variety of factors that go into play. One of which is probability.


Let's examine this statement

"Chickens like to peck the ground"

Now lets have a little thought experiment. Pretend we have no idea what a chicken is. We have just discovered them and we are observing facts about them. We have ten chickens in ten different pens. We notice that the first 8 chickens like to peck the ground. The ninth does not. So when we go to watch the tenth, what is the most logical conclusion we are going to arrive at? The chicken will probably like to peck the ground. We can assume this because it is a trend among the majority of other chickens.

Through experiments like this, hypotheses and theories are developed. Working theories often share a common theme and can be proven through verifiable evidence. How do we know chickens like to peck the ground? Because 99 percent of chickens like to do this. Even if 80 percent of chickens liked to peck the ground, if we were going to make a theory it would be something like "most chickens like to peck the ground"


Creationism is an outdated idea that should have long since been discarded. We have working models such as evolution, and even the string theory to help us understand how we began to exist. When we are normally dealing in terms of logic and rationality we take basics facts and compare it to other basic facts

The issue with God is that you can insert any variable in place of God and it would have the same tone and argument. You could say (x) created the universe. There is no way to prove it or disprove it, the only logical way to address this is the previous ones that I mentioned. Do we need (x) to explain how and why the universe operates? No we do not, we have working models in every way, shape, and form that help us understand how and why we exist

The resolution we are looking at is

"A Christian God probably does not exist"

Perhaps you could prove it is rational to believe in a personal creator but it is almost impossible to prove that it is a fact. When compared to modern scientific data and facts, there is no need for a personal God in order to explain how the unvierse works. When we look at this in terms of probability and rationality, there is no need for a personal creator. Science has explained almost everything.

[5] Lawerence Krauss ; A universe from nothing


You have failed to rebutt my arguments.

How does the closed/open/flat universe have bullpucky to do with the existence of YHWH?
Debate Round No. 2


This will be short. I think my adversary has failed to read my argument, and this was a waste of an hour. He claims I failed to refute any of his arguments, but had he read the rules he could clearly see that I am not allowed to respond to arguments until this round.

I will offer some brief rebuttals

Jesus is historical

This is probably the easiest to refute. If Jesus did the works he claimed, there would have been a variety of secular scholars that recorded these works. There are a drastically small number of secular scholars that ever even acknowledged Christ doing miracles. How do we know Rome existed? There are thousands of documents and books along with notations all throughout history that show us this. With Jesus there is such a minuscule number that it is hardly accurate. Even the ones that mention his divinity are in question.

One that sticks out is Josephus.

Josephus recorded some miracles of Jesus, but was dubbed a non credible source for the information that he recorded. Some of the events he described and wrote about were shown to be false. One of which is the massacre at Masada. He essentially claimed it was a mass suicide, but further archaeological findings show that there was signs of a war. It is way more in-depth than this but I do not feel the need to go into this due to my contenders limited response. [1]

Disciples dying for no reasons

I am assuming my adversary is referring to the disciples dying if Jesus was not the savior. I am going to save my self the trouble and disregard this because no evidence was even cited to support this. This is just a claim my adversary makes , and one that I do not want to waste the time refuting due to him not bothering to post a worthwhile response. Refuting this would waste almost the entire rest of this argument and is not necessary for me to win.

Personal Testimonies

People see Christ for the same reason the see the three eyed pig monster. They are either crazy, or their mind really wants to see him. If you want something bad enough you would be surprised how chemicals in your brain can work to allow it to happen. Granted a personal testimony is an invalid source of evidence to begin with but chemical reactions, and scientific explanations can almost be found in every case.

Watch Maker

My entire argument from the previous round refutes this.


There is no need for a personal creator or Christian God. Science can explain how everything came to be, how we exist, and even why we exist. Adding God to this is adding an unnecessary variable to the equation. Without the need for a God, or reason to have a God, there is a high possibility that God does not exist.

In addition to this I have shown how and why we can logically assume there is no God.

I have shown how the universe can come into existence

How matter can come from nothing

Also the argument from probability. Every time we look at this case, we can see there is no need for a God. If all the factors show there is no need for God, the next most logical process is to assume that one does exist. I would go in depth more but my adversary has failed to produce any viable arguments

I would like to thank Con for this debate, even if his responses were limited.



othercheek forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by ILL_logic 3 years ago
con are you referring to the biblical god ? if so no examples you have given is proof
Posted by Artur 3 years ago
3 out of that 4 I agree with you, but about Stalin: I dont agree.
Posted by Artur 3 years ago
"User Stalin should be perma banned"

did you mean: "permanently"? if so, I can take it as CON, I will argue that no need to ban him.
Posted by Subutai 3 years ago
I agree with you on all counts (I might contend the death penalty one, but I don't believe in a state-mandated death penalty).
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Most of those are shared, granted I am going to have to assume it in all of them as well. I will edit to say shared
Posted by unitedandy 3 years ago
I'd be willing to debate abortion if the response time was 3 days and it was 4 rounds.
Posted by GodChoosesLife 3 years ago
Ya there Mikal???...LOL
Posted by zmikecuber 3 years ago
What's the BoP on each of those?
Posted by GodChoosesLife 3 years ago
all of those are very interesting topics..
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 3 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by 2-D 3 years 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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Voting and plan to read later, autp-conduct for FF.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded and forfeited the last round.