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

The Almighty God exists

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: 3/24/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 522 times Debate No: 72276
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




Contrary to what atheists, agnostics, and even many Christians believe, God does indeed use science to accomplish His will. Abiogenesis is very likely to have inititated life, but it does not disprove God, and neither does evolution. Why would a God create a universe, with all its spot-on and orderly laws of science/physics, just to break those laws? He doesn't. He uses those laws to execute His will on earth, whether that be to create life, make a grand, beautiful and perfect environment suitable for life, or to punish nations that have turned away from His perfect goodness by volcanic eruptions, floods, meteor showers, earthquakes, fires, hurricanes, famines, and disease.


Firstly, I agree that neither abiogenesis or evolution disprove God. However, I would claim that the burden of proof lies on you to prove God exists, as the default belief should be the null hypothesis, e.g. God has no measurable or demonstrative effect on the world. While it would be impossible to effectively test for God, due to His omnipresent nature (We cannot make two environments, one without a God treatment and one with a God treatment and then compare them), to then proceed to assume that God is the explanation for some observable phenomenon is baseless. One could just as easily assume an alternative God, unobservable secular force, or for arguments sake, invisible leprechauns, enacted such change, since each is equally untestable. To put it simply, to say that abiogenesis does not disprove God, because He designed abiogenesis is not a basis for God, since you could just as easily say that abiogenesis does not disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, because the FSM designed abiogenesis. Because there is no compelling evidence in support of the existence of the FSM, the null hypothesis on the FSM effecting the world should be that the FSM doesn't, and in kind, because there is no compelling evidence in support of the existence of God, the null hypothesis on Him effecting the world should be that He doesn't.

With the above given, I would hold that it is impossible to prove God exists, without some future miracle occurring that would be observable and repeatable. I make the above statement with some grain of salt due to the fact that as of yet, you have only loosely explained your concept of God. I would request a more precise definition before I argue that it is unreasonable to believe in God. I am assuming you're referring to an omnipresent, omniscient, Abrahamic God, but more detail would be greatly appreciated. Catholicism? Is the Old Testament still a binding covenant, in the eyes of the God you mention? Etc.

Secondly, as you have not provided evidence that God uses science to accomplish His will, other than a rhetorical question, I would ask that you do so. Your rhetorical question assumes that God is a rationally thinking being whose actions can be predicted. However, if you were to conduct an experiment, praying to God for an event to occur, then predicting whether or not God would answer your prayer, I do not believe you would find any statistically significant evidence that you are capable of predicting God's actions, assuming He exists. Since you cannot know God by observing His alleged actions, why He would or would not use evolution to enact what may be His will is purely conjecture, as it stands.

Additionally, while abiogenesis does not necessarily directly contradict the idea of God, the scientific method it is based on does not offer God any support. If you cannot provide evidence that, if God exists, He used abiogenesis and/or evolution for creation, other than the argument that abiogenesis and/or the theory of evolution are the best observable theories we have for life so He would surely use those, then how do you mean to defend the argument that He does indeed use those methods? If God is omnipotent, He could surely bend physics and laws of reality to His will, and would therefore have no reason to follow the rules for the universe He designed, would He? The Bible itself, if we are to believe its contents, even gives reference to several incidents where God chose to ignore the laws of physics. This directly contradicts the idea that God would choose to follow physics simply because He invented it. For instance the flood (apparent conservation of matter issue, as well as lack of geological evidence), the parting of the sea (numerous violations), and God stopping the Sun's relative movement for Joshua (major thermodynamics issue, as well as interesting meteorological implications).
Debate Round No. 1


I am referring to the God of the Bible, the One who made a promise to send a Messiah called Jesus. Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies about Him... some examples would be that He would be born of a virgin, be a descendant of the tribe of Judah and a descendant of Jesse, and would be delivered to the Gentiles(non-Jews) to be persecuted(He was crucified).

So far well done on your argument. Comparing the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to a leprechaun and a Flying Spaghetti Monster, however, is a very childlike action. Unlike leprechauns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters, God is known because He spoke to the physical ancestors of the Jews today and raised up prophets who have performed and still do perform miracles today(yes, there are real life prophets today. I'll give you an example.. search for Prophet Tom Deckard. Contact him and tell him to prove to you that he's a real prophet. That's the only way you'll know if you don't take my word for it. He has prophesied even to the president). Now I don't know about leprechauns, but a Flying Spaghetti Monster does not have any witnesses or proof. There's no historical evidence for it either. Compare the number of people who believe in leprechauns or unicorns or Santa Claus with the people who believe in God. You'll find that the number of people who are Christian, Jew, or Muslim far outweigh the number of people who believe in other things.

You might bring up that many are "conditioned" into the religion through their upbringing; beware of generalizing. Not all Christians are brought up as a Christian. If you have an open mind, search online for Akiane Kramarik, Dr. Eben Alexander, George Rodonaia for examples. They were raised as atheists until something happened to them that completely changed their lives forever. And no, no one preached to them.

Concerning science, I did not say that God never breaks the laws of physics. He does create miracles like you said; I was emphasizing the point that natural phenomenon do not disprove God's existence, which I hear so many ignorant atheists try to argue, except for you since you are quite more logical than many of them.

If you are open, I do have some proof of His existence. The near-death experiences, healing miracles, and appearance of angels in bodily form(not the fake "did-you-see-that?" videos which are obviously edited) that you can find on Youtube.

Regarding the rest of Bible prophecy that have yet to occur in the future, I'd recommend you search for information on the Shemita, which is an event that has been observed to have affected many of the world's major events(this is the statistics you are looking for). It's very accurate:
And on the blood red moons:

Well there's some proof for you. No manipulation of words, just testimonies.


First, I would like to apologize, as you seem offended, and I believe my analysis has been partly misconstrued. It was never my intention to offend any person or set of beliefs. My round 1 mentions of leprechauns and the FSM are not to directly compare them to God, but to compare their supporting reasoning. This is an argument called reductio ad adsurdum. FSM seems a natural example for it. I won't go further into the FSM, but I will shortly explain reductio ad adsurdum, since my proceeding arguments will borrow from it significantly as well.
The basic idea behind reductio ad adsurdum is to take an argument (presumably from an opposing stance) and reduce the reasoning behind it from its context. In essence, if you are supporting your claim X with reasoning Y, then I would take reasoning Y, and use it to support an obviously absurd claim, Z. Since we can likely agree that claim Z is faulty, it implies there is a missing or defunct premise(s) within its supporting reasoning, Y. Since claims X and Z both use the same reasoning, Y, it follows that Y is insufficient to support X. In my argument I used the FSM for Z. By this I do not mean to draw a direct line between the FSM and God. What I do draw a line between is the argument you used to support God, and the argument that could hypothetically be used to support an absurd claim such as the FSM, those arguments being equivalent to each other.

Since the same reasoning you granted in round 1 could just as easily support something as obviously absurd (which is not to say God is absurd even though I contend he does not exist) as leprechauns, it demands that your reasoning be change or altered so as to support God, but not leprechauns (as it seems you have attempted to do here in round 2); stay with the reasoning, and then additionally argue that indeed anything from the reasoning, even the given, supposedly absurd example is justified (a rarely taken path); or back off the reasoning entirely, and insert a new reasoning for the initial conclusion.

I once again apologize. Now, onto my refutations.

Near death experiences cannot be independently verified, and those experiences are interpretable. I feel those grounds alone are enough to dismiss the topic. Consider further though, the near-death experiences of individuals of other religions, if we hold those as evidence, things get rather sticky for you, since your God claims to be the only one out there.

Upon entering Tom Deckard into Google the results are rather off-putting. Sites, plural, which come up before the "prophet" - yes, for those reading, Tom claims he is a prophet - are dedicated to debunking him. My favorites were and I did press forward though until I watched three of his videos. Upon cursory research, I have come to understand that Tom claims amongst other things, to have cured people of AIDS. Incidentally, he provides no proof of this and none of the allegedly cured have talked about it as far as I can tell. I don"t think I need say more on the subject of Tom; if he is your best example and evidence for miracles, I dare say you have just as much evidence of miracles as Tom does: none.

Your next argument, that more people believe God than Santa, is argumentum ad populum. This is a logical fallacy. Simply because a large number of people believe something does not make it true. Consider: Most people happily believe bananas grow on trees, but technically you would find the "banana tree" to botanically be an herb! Moreover, however, I am not trying to prove Santa, but disprove God. If the difference is merely the number of followers, and argumentum ad populum is a fallacy in this case, which it is, what reason remains for me to believe in God any more than in Santa? Since your amended argument is still fallacious, I would contend my initial statements about other explanations, mythical or secular in nature, still hold.

Next, you seek to cut off an argument I did not intend on making. The people you cited are all well and good, but this is evidence of the existence of your God no more than converts away are evidence that He does not exist, or converts to Roman Gods thousands of years ago are evidence that those gods existed.

As far as "proof" of healing miracles and angels on YouTube, I am unsure of which you are counting as obviously fake or not, so if you could provide these proofs, that would be appreciated. I did watch two on these subjects from Tom, since you seem to support him, and he does not back up any of his claims or even provide video of the miracles, as far as I saw.

Your videos on the Shemita and blood moons both suffer from the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, as well as fail to provide causal links. If I were to graph, over time, the percentage of world populous that are pirates, and the average global temperature, I would find a positive correlative relationship. This does not mean that we should tell our children to drop out of school and live a life on the high seas, so as to combat global warming.

So far these have all been refutations; to disprove God, I would propose a logic system. Since, a null state cannot be proven false with observation (effectively, just because something didn't happen in an experiment doesn't mean it couldn't happen), I seek to show that God is a logical impossibility as you portray Him. As you know, there are many parts of the Bible which speak to His perfection, omnipotence, etc. Many paradoxical arguments spew from them, that lead to arguments on man"s interpretation of the Bible, etymology failures, and definitions (See omnipotence paradox, Epicurean paradox). Since this debate has only a small number of rounds I will focus only on one with the least possibility in devolving into semantics.

First, as we know God is without sin and certain emotions like lust and envy are sins, so we can generate the premise that by extension God has not lusted or sinned.

Second, if God exists, God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows. (And much more, but this is irrelevant to my argument)

Third, if premise 2 is true, God must know the feelings of lust and envy.

Fourth, to know these emotions is synonymous to experiencing them, so God has felt lustful and envious.

So, given that God exists, as you have explained Him, God has had and has not had the feelings of lust and envy. (As shown by the four previous premises) This is paradoxical, and therefore God cannot exist as you define him; He is impossible by His very own definition.
Debate Round No. 2


letyoureyesbeopened forfeited this round.


Since the Pro has forfeited the final round without an amended, non-fallacious argument, and has no opportunity left too refute mine, I make no further comments.

Thank you for the debate, and I am sorry I did not get a response. Feel free to contact me to continue later, if you wish.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by ZenoCitium 1 year ago
Conduct goes to CON, as PRO forfeited a round.
Sources are tied. CON did not provide sources, though no sources were really needed to support his mainly logic based counter arguments. PRO cited a few youtube videos and a unreliable website. These sources, and PRO's arguments, have not lived up to the BOP levied on the resolution. PRO had a bold resolution to support but unfortunately didn't get far out of the gate before failing. It seemed like a more detailed explanation was required at the beginning to define God per the resolution. CON's arguments went unscathed due to PRO's forfeit of the final round. The arguments were not original but were definitely undeniably problematic to PRO's resolution. I doubt even with the final round that PRO would have provided an adequate rebuttal.
Posted by sputnick1 1 year ago
BLASPHEMY. How dare you say the great and all powerful flying spaghetti monster does't exist.
Posted by G-g-ghost 1 year ago
Lol Sputnick1 true that I find it disturbing he claims to have such real evdence but dosnt post it
Posted by sputnick1 1 year ago
Unless Adam and Eve were single celled organisms, the theory of evolution sort of does contradict the bible.
Posted by steffon66 1 year ago
also this idiot seems to think natural disasters which are bound to happen anyways are happening because people have turned away from god. so this guy thinks a perfect god kills children for the beliefs and sins of their parents? actually he didnt even say sins just beliefs. lmao if this idiot wins i will stop debating on this site assuming the con guy is much more reasonable which he almost has to be.
Posted by steffon66 1 year ago
also i forgot to mention if god is bound by natural law then he is not all powerful.
Posted by steffon66 1 year ago
if he created the laws he is not bound by the laws. i will be amazed if letyoureyesbeopeneded wins the debate and i have only read his first round. havent even heard from the con yet. but this guy has no evidence to support his belief which is why i think con will win.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ZenoCitium 1 year 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Please see comments.