The Instigator
Pro (for)
2 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Science can prove that God doesn't exist

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/4/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,138 times Debate No: 51628
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)




In my opinion our research and science can prove that God is a fictional character and He does not exist.

This is a sensible and understanding debate. Do not state your opinion on the Bible or other scripts of the same sort. Use correct grammar and throw your swears out of the window, they are not required here.


I accept.
My first point is that science cannot prove that God doesn't exist because it will contradict itself.It's a fact that energy cannot be created nor destroyed as stated in the first law of thermodynamics.So with science already contradicting itself it cannot really be proven that god does not exist.
Besides that,science cannot prove God does not exist because it violates multiple SCIENTIFIC LAWS.For example,some critics say that the formation of stars and galaxies violates the law of entropy, which suggests systems of change become less organized over time. But if you view the early universe as completely homogeneous and isotropic, then the current universe shows signs of obeying the law of entropy.
With that I end my debate by saying this...your move.

Debate Round No. 1


Thank you con,
nice arguments, but then again I've got counter-arguments

Counter-argument I: I see not how the absence of God would contrast science, if I understood that correctly. Right now what you are most likely referring to as "energy cannot be created or destroyed" is the Big Bang. The beginning of reality is not something I would wish to talk about, but if that's your will I shall.
We do not have a single argument on how the universe began. We have theories, and we have stories. It is true that energy cannot just be created, but that's just a counter-argument on God. If something couldn't just, appear, how was God created? He is most often referred to as "forever and infinite."
For one of the best theories on how the universe started, I suggest you look up the last point on, the big crunch. The title of the video is incredibly misleading (btw the part starts on 4:20)

Counter-argument II: You state that the absence of God would violate multiple SCIENTIFIC LAWS (I added those caps so you could understand what part I'm talking about), but then you go to say something about the formation of stars and galaxies violating the laws of entropy. Prepare to learn:
Stars are often formed from the clouds of dust scattered throughout the cosmos. As the cloud collapses, the material starts to heat up. One day that becomes a star. Simple!
Galaxies are a little bit more complicated. They're large blobs of stars and planets and clouds and much more stuff. They're held together by a HUGE gravity. In the milky way. that HUGE gravity is the supermassive black hole, but I'm not here to give you a lecture on that. 1. Bodies of gas, dust and stars collide. 2. The stuff begins to orbit the center stuff. 3. The rotation forms a galactic disk.

Ok, now to MY arguments. Took me a bit too long on those other ones ^^^

Argument I: God, being all so "forever and everlasting" cannot be, well, forever. Everything that has a beginning has to have an end. And like you said, nothing can simply be formed from nothing.

Argument II: Everything God has done, until now, can be explained. I know I'm kinda breaking my rules, but I'll let you also make a tiny adjustment. It is said that Jesus Christ was resurrected. And what proof do we have of that? A moved stone and no body in the "coffin." Anyone with that many people on his side could organize a party to move the stone and hide the corpse. And seeing him walk around afterwards, well, most likely a double. And later the double disappeared to "heaven."
Turning away from Christianity, not many unbelievable things have happened anyway. A kid fell out of a window and lived? Heck, a girl fell from an airplane from 10,000 feet and lived. I'm calling luck. The kid didn't fall on his spine or head or on a concrete surface. The girl was softened by the rainforest canopy.
Someone passed a test without even studying (no really, these are real examples)? How nice of God to turn away from the starving kids in Africa to help someone pass a test.
A real miracle would be if those kids would be helped or given food without explanation.

Well, good luck. Your move


Alright so you have said yourself that in your opinion science and research can prove that God does not exist.Sir,if I am correct you were obviously meaning that our research and science can prove He does not exist.However,how can science prove that He doesn't exist when science cannot explain ITSELF?That is what I have been trying to say.

Counter-argument 1:
You said that you do not wish to argue on the beginning of reality but isn't it the very beginning that proves everything else science is telling us to prove God doesn't exist?After all,The Big Bang theory is part of the topic we are debating on because it is part of our scientific researches.

Also,you asked that if something could not just appear out of nowhere,how was God created?Well,if God really did exist which I believe He does,then He shouldn't be bound by scientific laws which are obviously below Himself because He created them.

2nd Counter-argument :
Now on your second counter-argument.You explained how stars are formed.But here's the thing,how did those things appear in the first place?There would have to be a creator for that to happen in such a way that every single star and cloud in space forms in the same way.After all,their creation,in a way,requires LAWS right?

My 2nd point also has something for your arguments.
The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the speed of light doesn't change -- on earth or in galaxies far from us.

How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?

The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn't have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence.

Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle."

Next, Our research and science cannot prove that God does not exist because it has problems with it's own research.For example,the theory of Evolution.The theory of Evolution says that cells evolved over the billions of years.But here's the thing,scientists also have a problem with this because the unguided chemical processes cannot explain the Origin of the Genetic Code.

To appreciate this problem, consider the origin of the first DVD and DVD player. DVDs are rich in information, but without the machinery of a DVD player to read the disk, process its information, and convert it into a picture and sound, the disk would be useless. But what if the instructions for building the first DVD player were only found encoded on a DVD? You could never play the DVD to learn how to build a DVD player. So how did the first disk and DVD player system arise? The answer is obvious: a goal-directed process -- intelligent design -- is required to produce both the player and the disk.

Sources :
Debate Round No. 2


Good good, going strong, but once again I've got counter-arguments (please add spaces between commas.)

Counter-argument I:
Yeah I'll admit those 5 words I put into my argument really shaped this whole debate, right? Right now you're leaning away from the subject, towards "weather God exists" from "can science prove the existence of God." Why shouldn't God be bound by his own laws? They're not below him, that's like saying that the government can raid the people without any consequences because they made up the rules! Yes, God as we imagine might be over everyone else, but this is not a debate if God exists!

Counter-argument II:
Look, there is no one single way to tell how the universe started, like I said before. For the best answers, go check out It's by the same guy as before. I have so little time left I can't type it, I'm sorry.

Counter-argument III:
You say there is a flaw in the theory of evolution. That's not the topic here. Once again I'm gonna send you to a video. I hate doing this, relying on videos, but that's how I rollin':

I don't understand the last part.

My most powerful argument as I see it:
Religion. Religion was completely invented by humans. We're born with a sense to find out what's going on, but if we were not introduced to religion or a figure such as God, we simply wouldn't come up with the same principle. Of course we would develop ideas or theories, but we would never come to the same idea as now. The Bible was brought together from over 600 scripts. The Asian religions were mostly written by one guy. Simply said without others telling us these stories, we wouldn't come up with the same almighty figure we believe in today.
Because God isn't an automatic response. We see nature doing its thing, and we wonder why it happens so. People who want to find simple answers choose religion, demons or any other stories. People who doubt these thing try to figure it out themselves. I see religion and God as the easy way to go. It's not a bad thing, believing that there's someone, always protecting you. I see religion as the way of the scared, of the the doubtful.


How very unfortunate of you to have to rely on videos for me to see but how very lucky you that YouTube on my side is not working well for some reason.But enough of excuses.I shall conclude my debate.

Firstly , I do not believe I am leaning away from the topic but am rather explaining that you refusing to argue with my example of the Big Bang by stating that we do not have any arguments on how the universe began proves that science is just made up of theories when it comes to our origins and therefore cannot prove that there is no God because The Bible ( You broke the rules and allowed me to make adjustments so I am doing just that ) makes sense when it states that God CREATED the universe.

Second , yes , this isn't a debate on whether God exists but you do not make sense by saying this, "Yes, God as we imagine might be over everyone else, but this is not a debate if God exists!" I was merely explaining that if God is the master over everything it would only make sense that He should not be bound by His own laws.After all,He is as depicted by all religions as a SPIRITUAL BEING and spirits are not bound by SCIENTIFIC LAWS.

Third , you say that by me saying that the theory of Evolution has flaws I am out of topic.But you did not see the point.The point was that science can't be used to disprove God if it cannot even come up with properly thought out theories that aren't so easily contradicted by OTHER SCIENTIFIC FACTS.

Also , the last part was put as an example.I was just trying to use an analogy to explain what I was trying to say which was that there has to be someone who created the things we see all around us and gave each and every one of these things specific instructions in order for it to function properly and logically.

Besides that , as important as your views may be you have put no proper evidence that SCIENCE can disprove God.What you have done was merely put in your arguments based on your views.As for your videos,I bet that they are only videos teaching us ABOUT the theories and not stating any proof of the theories being true.

Finally , as strong as your arguments may seem to you , you have once again based your argument on your views and have not really argued on my FACTS.

Check and Mate.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by intellectuallyprimitive 2 years ago
To assert God exists you first must assume the universe exists.
Posted by Finalfan 2 years ago
I don't know if God exists. Maybe he does.. maybe he doesn't. Why is this still a thing?
Posted by mimibrightzola 2 years ago
Well in science, there is no definite 100% fact, everything can be subject to change" (of course I'm speaking generally, don't pick me out on Science tells us grass is green, etc.)
Posted by Youth 2 years ago
Haha yeah.This was a good one though.
Posted by Yodaskool 2 years ago
Well good game, first few hours and you're clearly on the winning side. Good look.
Posted by Yodaskool 2 years ago
Well good game, first few hours and you're clearly on the winning side. Good look.
Posted by jamccartney 2 years ago
I believe Pro may win this debate. He seems to be making much better arguments and is using better scientific theories.
Posted by jakeBatosn96 2 years ago
Well, seeing as science is a proof of things that live, and it's mainly about the world around us. Religion is based on faith of the humans to the identity they believe in. So in reality, you can not disprove god, only disprove people's thoughts, which can be flawed.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Not going to noob snipe, but this is a very advanced debate topic...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Hematite12 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gets conduct because of Con's unnecessary "check and mate" comment at the end, among several other things. Arguments go to Con, because many of Pro's arguments simply showed why it isn't necessary that God exists, but Pro is making a positive claim that it can be PROVEN by science that God does not exist, so showing that it is possible that he does not exist is insufficient for the resolution.
Vote Placed by bman77 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: This was like a slap fight with no real winner. Con had better conduct thoughts
Vote Placed by KingDebater 2 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: All con needed was the point that science can't possibly disprove the existence of God because God is not a thing in the natural world.