The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Science is not evidence against the existence of God.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/5/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,540 times Debate No: 37397
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (2)




Science explaining the world without reference to God, is not evidence against His existence.

God - The Creator of the universe.

1. This debate will be based upon logical arguments and reasoning. Sources should be minimal if at all necessary.

2. Con must accept the above definition of 'God' for the duration of this debate.

2. No semantic arguments.

4. First round for acceptance only.

For Voters
I ask that you choose tied for "reliable sources" when voting. This debate is meant to be based primarily on logic and reasoning, and sources should be unnecessary. (Should sources turn out to be of importance to the debate, I shall revise this request in the last round.)

I hope to enjoy a stimulating debate with my opponent. I wish them the best of luck.


Science itself is the very proof that an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniescient being exists. I accept this debate and will keep sources to a minimum as requested. This will be your logical debate, and I accept burden for now. Don't keep me waiting too long, won't you?

Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting the debate and I trust that he realizes that he is against the stated resolution. I look forward to a stimulation and enjoyable debate.

Science seeks to understand and explain the universe.

Science systematically observes, hypothesizes, experiments, analyzes, and eventually draws conclusions about how the world works. The science of today is built upon the understandings of yesterday, as we add to and revise theories and explanations to match our most current understandings of the universe. Some of the things we learn through science allows us to create, manipulate and make use of the world around us for our own benefit in new ways. Science is undeniably an integral part of human civilization and nobody should overlook or dismiss it.

There is however something very important about science that some people don't seem to understand. In a nutshell one can basically say that science seeks to understand and explain the world around us. Understand and explain. One more time for those that didn't catch it yet... science seeks to understand and explain the world around us.

Now this understanding is developed in many ways and on many levels; ranging from quantum physics, to neuroscience, to biology, to geology, to physics, to astronomy, to understanding the the very origins of the universe itself. There are many, many other disciplines and levels of reality that science seeks to understand but I'm sure you all know that. Getting back to my point, science seeks to understand as much as it can about how the universe works.

Now there are several reasons why science doesn't really conflict with the idea of God. These are reasons that atheists won't like and may dismiss without a second thought. I ask you however to take a moment and really consider what I am about to say.

The main reason why science isn't evidence against God is simple and has basically been mentioned already. Science seeks to understand and explain the world around us. I know, I have said it sooo many times already. Now let me explain exactly what it means.

Understanding and Knowledge

Understanding is basically having knowledge of something, and at its core science is a quest for knowledge. All scientific theories, laws, and facts are knowledge. They are explanations of how something works. By understanding how something works we can make use of it. When scientific knowledge is applied to the world around us, it results in various kinds of advancement and changes in our reality. Science when not applied is nothing more than knowledge. This is where my point becomes important.

Knowledge is never a cause in and of itself. It only becomes a cause of something tangible when it is applied. Science likewise is not a cause in and of itself, but when it is applied it allows us to change the world. Now you may be wondering how this relates to the matter of God. Allow me to briefly explain.

Science explains the world around us based on our understandings. And so we immediately come upon a number of reasons why science isn't evidence against God.

1. Our understanding(and/or explanation) of something is independent of the thing understood.
2. Our understanding(and/or explanation) of something can be wrong or incomplete, or be based upon a wrong or incomplete understanding(and/or explanation) of something else.
3. Our understanding(and/or explanation) can be limited by our relative relation, in time and space, to that which we seek to understand.
4. Our understanding(and/or explanation) of something can be limited by our beliefs, assumptions, preconceptions, bias, ignorance, technology, intelligence, knowledge e.t.c

Basically there are many reasons why our understandings and explanations may not match the reality of a matter. In particular our explanations, interpretations and conclusions can be completely wrong. Science seeks to minimize this but at the end of the day reality does not conform to science.

Science and Reality

My point is simple. Our understanding of how the world works, does not determine how the world works. And our understanding of reality does not dictate reality. Furthermore our explanations of how the world works are nothing more than explanations, and they alter nothing in and of themselves. Explanations are not causes but more akin to observations.

Science seeks to understand and explain reality, and while the application of science allows us to alter reality... science does nothing in and of itself, it is simply explanations. This is particularly relevant with regards to God. Science may some day know whether or not God created the universe, but it will never ever change or alter the facts.

Science has no bearing on whether or not God exists... because science explains reality, it does not dictate it. If God does exist, science and all the explanations in the world will not change the facts. And if God does not exist, religion and all the beliefs and faith in the world will not change the facts either.

Science seeks to understand and explain reality... but remember one simple fact. Science is not reality!

I leave it at this for today. This is just the beginning of my arguments, but I'm curious what my opponent will come up with. I wish my opponent the best of luck.



Ok, here we go. Your first point is half right. I'll give you that. Science has always worked on a strict system when it comes to new ideas, and those who do not use this system are usually conspiracy theorists anyway. But science works on a framework when it comes to new ideas.

If you see something in the world, that is an observation. If you have an explanation for something, that's a hypothesis. You carry out experiments that could aid or hinder the proof of the hypothesis and repeat until you have confirmed something from the experiment. your findings then become a theory. Theories can remain so for quite a while, and should they become irrefutable, they become laws. So let's plug God into the scientific process, as it's formally called.

1; I see the world around me. Something or someone must have made this.

2; I think an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and invisible being called God made the world.

3; There are no experiments that can prove God's existence.

4; Therefor, my hypothesis is flawed.

The scientific process disproves God's existence as he fails to make it past testing. You can feel free to repeat the method on anything you like, but Science itself refutes the existence of God as something that cannot make it past testing has no hold in the scientific community. You cannot sit before me and say that scientific methods today can be wrong. The scientific method means that a scientist spends the whole lifetime of a theory trying to prove it wrong and only accepts it when he can no longer find flaws with it. The word theory is often misused in today's society, as a theory actually has testing behind it, not like a hypothesis. A simpler way of putting it is innocent until proven guilty. You have to prove your theory guilty of being true before it can be accepted. You can't prove something doesn't exist because the scientific method assumes that it is innocent of existence until then.

Until you can actually follow the scientific method, don't lecture me on what's real or not. Science is measurement, records and discovery. Religion has always opposed people becoming smarter because they become less dependent on their priests after they realize the lies behind it all. You may demand solid proof of God, but the very method of scientific discovery is evidence enough against you. Science is about learning and understanding. You say that science not put to use is but knowledge, but we put the science to use learning more and more about the world. If God did exist, we would have noticed by now. You're right. Nothing can change the facts. That is why scientists use facts, and religions use faith.

I have disproved your God with the first chapter of any decent science textbook. Your move. Don't keep me waiting,

Debate Round No. 2


I thank Con for his arguments. I do however feel like he has completely missed my point. Fortunately I think his arguments may be helpful in making my point clear.

Con says "If you see something in the world, that is an observation."

What Con says is indeed true... but one's observations aren't always true, correct, or accurate. Observation once suggested that the Earth was flat, and science believed it... that was an observation that perfectly illustrates why observation does not always match Reality. It's not just about observing, but about seeing the bigger picture and seeing things from the right angle. There are also thingswhich simply can not be observed in the first place.

Reality does not conform to observations, explanations, or science. Con should be careful not to overlook this critical point.

Con says "If you have an explanation for something, that's a hypothesis."

Whether it is a hypothesis, theory, or law... they are all ultimately explanations. First let me once again say that Reality does not conform to explanations... explanations are supposed to match or describe Reality.

If an explanation does not match or describe Reality accurately then it is wrong. It doesn't matter who came up with it or how they did so. It doesn't matter how long it has been accepted or considered true. It doesn't matter how much observation and experimentation has supposedly proved it. Reality is not dependent on explanations. Explanation are dependent on Reality.

To put it another way... Reality is the Territory and science is the Map. First of all the Map can never completely represent every aspect of the Territory. Secondly an accurate Map depends upon an accurate perception and interpretation of the Territory. It is never ever the other way around.

One should never forget that a Map is a representation of Territory. A map is not only a representation of Territory but is by necessity based upon Territory. Finally a map is an explanation of a Territory, an explanation that allows one to understand and move through the Territory. Reality is the Territory, and science is the Map.

Science(the map) must always conform to Reality. Reality(the territory) never ever conforms to Science(the map).

Con says "Science itself refutes the existence of God as something that cannot make it past testing has no hold in the scientific community."

I have explained above why Science does not determine Reality. Science has absolutely no bearing on what does or does not exist. A map has no bearing on what does or doesn't exist in a in the Territory it describes. A map can of course decide what “supposedly” exists or doesn't exist but if it doesn't match the Territory then the map is wrong.

By the same token Science explains Reality by observing, hypothesizing, experimenting e.t.c but none of this alters reality. Even after going through the rigorous scientific method, something accepted as a theory or law can turn out to be wrong. This is evidence that Science does not determine Reality. If science did determine Reality why would it ever be wrong?

With that in mind, what science can or can not test is completely and utterly irrelevant when it comes to existence. What science can test may determine what can be proved to exist or not exist, but what actually exists doesn't need to be testable in order to exist. Testability is not a criteria for existence. Our inability to test any given things or phenomena does not make it non-existent.

There are countless things in the universe which science will be able to test... we couldn't possibly test everything in the universe. Does that mean that all those things don't exist? Is any part of the universe that we can not or have not tested non-existent? That would be a ridiculous and baseless assertion.

Now one can always argue that something that can not be tested does not exist... nobody is denying that. But don't think that Reality is going to bend itself to match your arguments. Just like Reality isn't going to bend itself to match what science expects of it.

My point is simple, Explanation and Reality are two different thing. Knowledge and Reality are two different things. Science and Reality are two different things. Reality does not answer to, depend upon, or conform to science.

Con says “Until you can actually follow the scientific method, don't lecture me on what's real or not.”

What is real is not dependent on whether you or I can “actually follow the scientific method”. What is real is not dependent on the scientific method in the first place. What is real will stay real whether or not the scientific method proves it to be real.

To put it simply: Science(and the scientific method) do not deterine Reality.

Con says “If God did exist, we would have noticed by now.”

Whether or not God exists does not depend on whether or not we notice Him. Just because we still haven't seen or noticed some star at some remote edge of the universe doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Our notice has no bearing on existence... though it can change existence haha. It does not however determine what does or does not exist.

Anyway, my apologies for taking so long to reply. I look forward to your arguments, and I hope I have finally made myself clear.



You cannot fail to make an observation. If you see the sun going across the sky, that can only be wrong if it wasn't the sun. Your hypothesis may be wrong if you think that the sun revolves around the earth, but after experimentation the hypothesis fails.
If you believe that your God exists, yet it can't make it past the scientific methods, then your God has already been disproved by the first chapter of any decent school textbook. You asked for proof that God doesn't exist, but if you're just going to ignore the basics of science and then declare that your God hasn't been disproved, then I'm wasting my fingers away bothering to reply. You repeat that the existence of something is not dependent on our understanding of it. But there's as much evidence that a sentient shark who can't swim and smiles upon us all exists, and just as much evidence that he murdered your God. Science can disprove the giant shark though; the observation that the world was created, the hypothesis that Sharky the shark did it (sign up for the church of the Sharky today), but since we can't experiment to see Sharky, in scientific terms, he doesn't exist.

Even if you say that not everything can be observed, you really lack any kind of imagination as to what observe means in scientific terms. Hearing is observation. Feeling the gravitational effects of dark matter is observation, but nothing has detected a sentient being capable of creating the universe yet. You can't just say there is beauty in the world to prove the existence of God, you have to account for bone cancer in children too. (Stephen Fry)

When you have experiments that would validate God in the scientific method, reply. Until then, I'll be waiting,

Debate Round No. 3


I thank Con for his arguments, though it seems like he still doesn't quite get the points I'm making. I hope readers and voters can follow my logic. Hopefully things will be clearer in this last round.

Con says "You cannot fail to make an observation."

Observations are made by humans, perception and interpretation play an important role in the act of observing. By definition both perception and interpretation are subjective, and usually that which is subjective can vary from person to person. What this means is that many people can look at the same event or phenomena and perceive it differently.

Perception is at the heart of all observation... you can not observe without perceiving. What one perceives is limited in many ways. It is limited by their senses, by their mentality, by their understanding of that which they observe, and by their spatial and temporal location in relation to that observed. These are just a few possible factors limiting one's perception of something.

What all of this means is that one can observe something, but fail to perceive it in it's entirety. Furthermore one can interpret an observation incorrectly, even if they happen to observe and percieve it accurately. Ultimately, while one can easily make an observation, their observation can just as easily be incomplete, or incorrectly interpreted.

Con says "If you see the sun going across the sky, that can only be wrong if it wasn't the sun."

Most humans who have lived on Earth have seen the sun going across the sky, this does not however mean that they all correctly interpreted what it means. As you so kindly pointed out, it was once believe that this meant that the Sun revolved around the planet. This is of course incorrect, but the observation remains the same. Even now our observation of the sun crossing the sky has remained the same... we have a different interpretation for it though.

Observation is one thing, but the real business of understanding and explaining begins with interpretation. And interpretation is not only subjective, but the interpretation of something has no bearing on the thing itself. The sun didn't actually revolve around Earth when everybody thought that it did, everybody was wrong and their interpretation didn't change Reality. That is the nature of any interpretation, it can be correct or wrong but it does not alter Reality.

Con says "You asked for proof that God doesn't exist"

Actually I'm just debating that science is not evidence for God. I have not asked for proof that God doesn't exist. Most atheists know perfectly well that there is no proof that God doesn't exist, on the other hand there is no proof that he does exist either. Since there is no proof that he does exist, they see no reason to believe in him, which is perfectly understandable and logical. Arguing that there is proof that he doesn't exist... is not a claim to make lightly. Being skeptical is one thing... asserting that God does not exist is a whole other ball game.

Con says "yet it can't make it past the scientific methods"

I feel like a broken record but let me say it again anyway. The scientific method, is essentially a way of examining and interpreting Reality. This does not mean that it determines what exists and what does not exist.

Please differentiate between determining what exists... and determining what is believed to exist. They are very, very different. Existence is not synonymous with that which is believed to exist. Something that is not believed to exist, can exist regardless of beliefs to the contrary.

A lack of evidence is not evidence.

I think your sticking point is in confusing a lack of evidence for evidence in itself. There is arguably a lack of scientific evidence that God exists... this does not however mean that there is evidence that God does not exist. These are two different things.

Evidence is always open to interepretation.

Another critical point that you do not seem to understand is that "evidence" is always open to interpretation. Always. You can say the Theory of Evolution is evidence against God... while I can just as easily claim that it is evidence for God. You can claim that The Big Bang Theory proves that God didn't create the universe... and I can claim that God is the most logical cause of the Big Bang.

You can claim that "cancer in children" is evidence against God, I can claim that "cancer in children" is a a meaningful experience for their immortal souls, and that it teaches the parents and others involved with the children to have compassion and be grateful for their own lives.

Ultimately my point is that at this very moment Science has no evidence specifically proving that God does not exist. It proves that some gods probably don't exist by proving, for instance, that Thunder is not the result of a god throwing a tantrum. But that hardly says anything about the concept of God, which is a much bigger concept than the idea of one god being responsible for rain, and another for harvests, and another for war. The idea of God, is one of an Ultimate Reality, a First Cause, a Supreme Being e.t.c.

I have read of one phrase which comes closest to describing God as far as I'm concerned... and it says that God is "All-That-Is". Good luck proving that wrong... let alone proving that "All-That-Is" does not exist.


"All-That-Is" is arguably a vague and broad conception of God. But you see, anyone who bothers to think it through is perfectly aware that the whole idea of God can not be more than a vague and broad conception. Just like the idea of "life" or "consciousness" or a "soul"... they are words that encompass more than one specific conception, description or idea... ultimately they represent something that is difficult to define, conceive, describe or put into words.

There are other words, which come closer to representing something similar in magnitude to the idea of God, words that are also beyond conception, explanation, understanding, and description. Try explaining or describing "infinity" or "reality" or "existence". Better yet... try finding evidence against them? Impossibru!

To some of us, God is as self-evident as reality or existence. It is as meaningless to try to disprove Him, as it is to disprove "existence". There is actually more to it than that... but that would be a whole other discussion, and not something I would debate here. Not enough space for that.

Anyway... it's been a pleasure Duncan.



I think there's been a lot of repetition with little change. Whether or not your perception is flawed or not, once it goes through experimentation, the flaws are ironed out. If some tribe thinks the sun is God, then an experiment involving research regarding the sun will fix that. Experimentation demands revision of the original hypothesis.

"Actually I'm just debating that science is not evidence for God."

No, you're debating that science cannot disprove God. I'm going to finally stop beating around the burning bush and say what's already in the comments; you can't prove something DOESN'T exist! That's the first law of science! It's common sense. We could spend the whole day listing things that don't exist. Innocent until proven guilty. That's how it goes. Until you can prove your existence, you don't exist. We've had an argument, that is proof of our existence. Hell, the people who will vote on this were presumed to be spam scripts and refused the right to vote until they verified their identity, presumed innocent of humanity before guilt.

The Scientific method is not a way of interpreting reality. It is the basis of accepting existence and allows us to quickly determine validity and credibility of ideas. It is partially true that what science knows may be wrong, but because science uses factual evidence and testing, that partial truth is less than a percent. Belief implies less than evidence. It implies faith. The best thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it because it is impartial and unbiased.

A lack of evidence is precisely that; a lack of evidence, existence. The lack of evidence for Sharky the omnipotent shark deity is proof of his lack of existence. You must provide proof, otherwise your lack of proof is evidence that you've been pulling the idea of God out of thin air.

But I don't know why you'd support the existence of this "God". Your new definition implies that this God isn't even sentient, you're just saying everything is God. I'm God by your definition. So are you. So are the voters. So is Sharky the omnipotent overlord who you can't disprove (well, scientific method can). Why would you worship this God when it isn't even a defined entity. If God is everything, then everything is God. But everything didn't create the universe, God did, but everything is God... Do you not see the flaw in this circular logic?

Ultimately, this debate proves that debating the existence or lack thereof of any deity is a waste of time. Neither of us will change our stance. No other conclusion can be drawn. You'll just keep demanding proof against something you can't provide proof for and the viewers will comment about the futility of the debate. I mainly accepted this, because many take no one accepting their debate as a sign that their side is right. We inevitably just have to agree to differ.

If you'd like to bring up any other debates regarding religion, but not the existence of God (morality etc.), send a challenge my way. Until then, I'll be waiting,

Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Duncan 3 years ago
Yeah, I can second that one. Any kind of God makes free will an impossibility. Also, if God were to exist, he would be the most immoral force in the universe. Something like that. Challenge me with something interesting. See you then,

Posted by Elusivetruth 3 years ago
@ Duncan

Cool, I have to think about it but yeah, there are plenty of God related things to debate. It's just difficult to focus on one thing that can be debated in a maximum of five rounds. And coming up with resolutions that accurately reflect one's position is tricky too haha.

What do u think about, Free Will, by the way? It's another topic I find quite intriguing.
Posted by Duncan 3 years ago
Besides, Elusive Truth, if you want more debates about God, I'd happily oblige. Not ones on its existence though, those ones just go on forever and achieve nothing.
Posted by Duncan 3 years ago
"Had more grammar, and words. He also made better points compared to con. Nobody used sources which annoys me, but anyways, I think that Pro won just by a little bit."

Am I the only one who sees irony in the phrase "had more grammar"?
Posted by Elusivetruth 3 years ago
@ Mikal

You say "While science can not change what is fact and what is not, it helps us understand what is a fact and what is not."

And that my friend is exactly what I am referring to. Understanding has absolutely no bearing at all on existence. Our understanding doesn't cause anything to exist... it already exists regardless of whether or not we understand it. Just because we don't know or understand something doesn't mean it does not exist. Our understanding is completely and utterly irrelevant... it is only meaningful to us but it determines very little in the bigger picture.

I am perfectly aware that God might not exist, and might be a figment of my imagination. I know that if God does not exist, then none of my(or anyone else's) beliefs, experiences, or opinions will change that fact.

On the flip side... if God does exist then no evidence, testing, lack of testing, scientific method, scientific theory law, or scientific law will change it either. I wonder whether you and Con get that. Because it seems like you do not.

God's existence, or lack or existence, is not dependent on our scientific capabilities, the scope of our scientific understanding, our current scientific knowledge, or the agreements and assumptions of the scientific community. It's all irrelevant.

That which exists, exists... and nothing changes that fact. Each of us, for whatever reason, are free to choose what we believe in and why. Science is not the ultimate or the only possible criteria, and in the bigger picture science doesn't actually have any bearing on what does or does not exist.

At its best science allows us to understand Reality(that which exists) and apply our understanding to change the world.
Posted by Elusivetruth 3 years ago

It would seem you not only took it upon yourself to "counter conduct" the previous voter. But you also ignored my request not to vote on "reliable sources"(check the end of my first post). Perhaps someone should counter vote that as well?

Oh well... that aside, there seem to be are a number of misunderstandings I should clear up.

First of all... while I did say that a hypothesis, theory, and law are all explanations... the word "ultimately" was used for a very good reason. Obviously the degree of evidence supporting the three can be very different. But at the end of the day a law is still an explanation, it is not a cause. The cause is what the law describes or explains. This is something both you and Con... don't seem to understand.

Secondly, I readily admit that my resolution had that slight bit of ambiguity. Which is something I only realized in the last round. But I did in fact counter that argument... and Con did not address my counter argument. I argued that all evidence is open to interpretation, depending on one's conception of God. This includes scientific theories and laws, the Theory of Evolution for instance can be interpreted as evidence for God.

Now a simple question. Is existence dependent on evidence? Is existence dependent on scientific testing?

Does somebody have to test something with the scientific method before it exists? I guess that means there was a scientist testing the Big Bang while it occurred.I mean basically what you and Con are suggesting is that if science doesn't test it... it doesn't exist right? I'm not sure how the universe, Earth, or humanity managed to exist without the careful scientific testing every step of the way. I guess there was no Gravity either until Newton noticed and tested it... before that Gravity did not exist right?

My point is simple... and yet it seems to be as slippery as an eel.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
It would then be on pro to show that God existing has always been a material fact. If he could prove that, science would be irrelevant because even if it did or did not help us understand that God existed, he would have always existed. That would be reality. The issue is Pro can not meet that BOP. You can assign any variable to that argument and logically rationalize its existence. Pro would have to show that God 100 percent exits for his argument to stand, and that is impossible. Thus his resolution and arguments are faulty from the start.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
counter conduct to the guys previous vote for offering no reason.

I think Con wins this due to an argument he presented that was not countered. Con says Science itself relies on tests and variables that are used to proof theories. He gives the difference between a test, theory, hypothesis, and law(fact). He uses this to show that there is no way to show that a God does not exist. Science by definition is the study of the physical and natural world, and that study is done by the steps in which con outlines. Pro responds with

"Whether it is a hypothesis, theory, or law... they are all ultimately explanations".

The difference is, there are laws that are functional within the universe that have a multitude of facts to support them. All of these have undergone the process in which Con laid out. The issue is the title. Pro states that Science can not disprove God which is true, but that is not the debate. Science can provide evidence to show that a God probably does not exist. Therefore by the process in which Con laid out, we can derive and rationalize evidence that a God probably does not exist. At that point Pros stance is false. Pro tries to get around this with saying science has not bearing on reality, but fails to derive the point behind Cons contention. While science can not change what is fact and what is not, it helps us understand what is a fact and what is not. So the perception of what "reality" as pro defines it can change. Thousands of years ago everyone thought the earth was flat. This was an objective fact that everyone assumed to be true, by technology advancing we were able to find out this is false. The claim pro is making is that no definition or circumstance would change the fact the earth was always round to begin with. He would claim that is reality. Again the difference is science gives us a reason to believe this is the case, and we can study why that is a fact. God does not offer the same convenience.
Posted by Elusivetruth 3 years ago
Hmmmmm... maybe I'll challenge you to something else. I need to think some things through first... it is, as expected, turning out to be difficult to debate in five rounds haha. The matter that we were discussing just now for instance is something I have discussed with someone else as well... and it took a while before he got what I was saying. We didn't come to agreement... but he finally got what I was saying.

A back and forth is necessary to eventually reach an understanding. Five rounds isn't enough to truly get where somebody is coming from and then explain things in their terms. I consider a debate particularly good when it challenges and expands one's mind, and that is achieved when you hear new arguments and understand how somebody thinks differently from you.

But yeah... I wouldn't mind explaining my belief in God but not in a debate haha. It is by the way not as simple a belief as you were implying... but yeah, if you're interested, I'm sure you would at least be amused haha. :P

Anyway, it's been a pleasure.
Posted by Elusivetruth 3 years ago
Tch... idiot formatting.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Mikal 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: rfd in comments
Vote Placed by WheezySquash8 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Had more grammar, and words. He also made better points compared to con. Nobody used sources which annoys me, but anyways, I think that Pro won just by a little bit.