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


Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 12/3/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 611 times Debate No: 66254
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




God is real fight me about it tho.


There has never been any evidence for a god, or anything supernatural. Lets stop and think about this. Can't we all agree that, outside of a god and anything claimed to be supernatural, everything we believe in has evidence: we can see it, feel it, observe it in some way. No god can be observed using the ways we know how to observe. We are told that god cannot be observed, so how can we know he is real? If we apply everything we use to gain knowledge about something, why wouldn't we rely on that to prove a god? How can rely on the current method that supposedly proves this god? We have no reason to believe that this a good method, as it has never proved anything else.
No god has been shown to be a part of this universe. There has been no sign inside the universe, and the universe is everything that we can know of. People say that god is not of this universe, so we cannot observe him. But everything we know of is of this universe and observable. If god is outside the universe, in the eyes of human beings, what's the difference between being not of this universe and not existing? If I were to come up with something other than a god and said it was not of this universe, I'm sure you would dismiss it.
People us a god as an answer to many of questions, mostly why are we here? Well, we have scientific answers with evidence to back it all up and demonstrations. However, if all of these scientific explanations were proved wrong, that does not prove a god. Lack of evidence for one claim is not evidence in favor of another claim.
If there is a god, he has failed to make himself observable, and consequently, I cannot accept this being as existing.
Debate Round No. 1


Alright I'm going to start of by contesting your statement of their being evidence of a God or lack there of. The simplest of questions" how did life begin" has yet to be answered by scietists. Of course we do know that the big bang occurred and evolution followed after, however what initiated the event? Did nothing somehow ram up against nothing and make life? Of course not the first law of thermodynamics states you cannot get something from nothing. So as a scientific community this law goes against their being no higher power involved in the creation of life.

Second point, odds of life. Each cell of the human body is perfectly designed for us. In our DNA, the number of proteins and protons must be at an exact number in order for life to be possible. The odds of this happening are 10^37. I like to think of it in this way. Take some dimes and spread them one right next to the other, all across north america. The dimes are as close as possible, tightly packed over this entire area. Now continue stacking dimes on top of those already in place. Repeat this step until the height of the dimes reaches the moon, 238,900 miles away. Now multiply that number of dimes by 1 BILLION. Next take one single red dime and throw it into this massive pile of coin, and mix it all up. (The analogy is theoretical of course) but the idea is, the odds of you finding that red dime are the same odds that the number of proteins matches the protons within the human cell, making life possible. Without a Devine creator these odd are beyond belief of their possiblility. Now since the human body is so complex, this is just one of many examples of how precice our creation was. If you say to your self that "yes the odds are not in the favor of creation life but obviously it happened" then I ask you, what are the odds of the rest of the human body and so many other complex organisms being created as well.( the dimes analogy can be found in evidence unseen, an apologetic book by James Rochford


My main points here are this, nothing didn't somehow slam into nothing to produce a big bang, the first law of thermodynamics contradicts that statement. There was a outside source, a God, who enabled life among humans.

The fine tuning of not only our bodies, but our world come out of a great plethora of odds that are not in the favor of life. Odds amounting up to this are certainly only obtainable through a Devine higher power


Firstly, we are not perfectly designed, especially at the cellular level. Let's think of cancer. While some forms of cancer are influenced by the outside, it can be hereditary, and it can also be, in the simplest terms, unlucky. But, let's say it was perfect. Just because the odds are not in our favor of us being perfect, does not mean it can't happen. There are trillions of species of living organisms. Some of these organisms have only recently popped up, so we can be pretty sure a creator didn't create them. Some of these organisms have actually been created, even, by scientists in a lab. They are usually single celled, microscopic organisms, but nonetheless, they were created, but not by a divine being.
But, again, even if it's unlikely that everything would be perfect, this does not mean a creator was behind it. Think of the lottery. Only one person in several hundred thousands to several million people will win a drawing. There is no divine power, just a roll of the dice.
Let's go to the big bang. Nothing did not slam in to something to create the big bang. According to Stephen Hawking, there was nothing was before the big bang, as nothing can exist outside of space and time. "Asking what was before the big bang is like asking to find the edge of the earth" (Stephen Hawking). Stephen Hawking also said that "there may be a god, but science has already proved how everything can be the way it is without one".
There are tons of odds not in our favor for there to be life on earth. In fact, there are tons of odds not in favor of life existing anywhere in the galaxy. But, this just means that life is a rare occurrence. It is rare to find life in the galaxy, and it's rare to find silver and gold. But this doesn't mean there was divinity behind it. Just because we don't have a better answer yet, doesn't mean we can make up an answer like divinity.
We are on one planet in this humongous universe. If we take all the libraries from every first world country in the world and combine them all in to one library, in comparison, our galaxy is one book, and our planet is one atom that forms the ink on a period. Why would a being of divine power create a universe just for us that is so big, we will never, ever be able to see the 99.98% of the universe that we haven't been able to observe? The rest of the universe obviously serves no purpose. We only need the earth, the sun, and the moon. In fact, other things like solar flares and comets can kill us easily. And why would a divine being give us an earth where tornadoes run ramped, earthquakes shake our homes violently, volcanoes create streams of lava over our roadways in to our livings rooms, hurricanes that wipe us out, solar flares that interfere with our electricity, and why would he give us cells that can end up killing us? Why would he design us so that we can choke on food? Do you know why people die instantly when they break their neck? There is a nerve that connects from one side of the brain to the other. This nerve is what basically lets us function. But, this nerve does not just go from one side to the other in a straight line. This nerve goes from one side of the brain, down the spinal cord, around the heart, and back up to the other side of the spinal cord and then to the brain. This nerve serves no other purpose than to connect the to sides of the brain. It would be a lot safer if there was a straight line from one brain to the other. Giraffes are easily killed because of this.
You claim something can't come from nothing, and I agree. Where did a divine being come from? Why does this being get to not follow the rules? If this being can, than you cannot dismiss the possibility of another thing doing the same thing. The theory of the big bang is that the universe has always been here, but had started a very small point. Nothing exploded, it just kept expanding from this small point and it continues to expand. This happened billions of years ago, and it's going to continue to happen. In terms of the life of our universe, human life on earth is a blink of an eye. We are not going to be here forever.
Debate Round No. 2


I would like to yet again start off by origin of life, you said it in your argument, there was nothing before something. the question still stands as how can something come from nothing? you also stated that new species are popping up in today's society. i would like to counter that by stating that my argument was for the origin of life, once the odds have been worked through and produce life, it is inevitable that new species will arise and evolve. The dimes analogy only referred to how life started, not how life has evolved. As for the statement of how life began, you said " just because we don't know, we cannot say that there is a god" (not word for word but basic concept) however this logic is circular and ignorant. choosing to simply say, we don't know, but we CERTAINLY know it is not god shows ignorance. Yes science has in fact proven a lot and yes science is compatible with the bible. The simple fact of saying "we do not know", blinds you to the fact that there is a possibility for a god. As a christian, i interpret the bible to find answers. The bible has a full explanation of how the origin of life began, (no i do not believe the earth is 6000 years old) however, overlooking the explanation of how life came to be, through the biblical view is something I ponder. I do not see why it is so hard to look at the bible and see how well it actually does correspond with science. here are a few examples

In the first book of the bible, genesis, god created the earth. Now the bible referrers to the creation of earth in days. There are a few ways to defend this. most believe that scripture is talking about literal 24 hour periods, in correlation of modern time keeping methods. however at no point is it stated the length of time in between these 24 hour periods. Now were these actual 24 hour periods? The answer is quite unknown, as methods of keeping time were so different back then. My point is still valid however that there is no distinct time frame of when this occurred. over 45 billion years? that is quite possible and within itself can explain evolution. This by no means a fully developed argument, it was just a small example of how the bible is able to go hand in hand with science. witch brings me to my next point in the validity of the bible

Many atheists say that the bible is not valid therefore discarding any fact coming from it. However the validity of the bible can be proven true in many different ways, my personal favorite being Prophecy. Basically these are predictions found in the old testament that have been found to be fulfilled in the new testament. There many predictions ranging from the birth and death of Christ, the way in which Christ would die, and many others. Daniel is a book in the old testament that contains one of the most common predictions, the death of Christ down to the exact year.

Before laying out the prophecy"s alone, there is a background that should be touched on to bring forth the reliability of these predictions. The Dead Sea scrolls are documents that were found in the Qumran site and the Dead Sea caves in 1947. Basically the entire old and new testament. Scholars from all over the world came to authenticate the dates and all match up with when they clam to be written. i encourage you to do some research on the Daniel 9 prophecy. I have spent countless house of research on the topic and only find to to strengthen my faith.

Conclusion stated before, something cannot come out of nothing
2. the statement "we don't know yet" is no reason to put more disbelief in a god, if in fact that god is able to explain some of the things that are currently unknown to scientists.
3.The bible produces a plethora of valid arguments of how the origin of life begin and the bible itself is in fact valid.


Firstly, I believe the bible does mean 7 literal days when talking about the creation of the earth. Here's why: The bible mentions events that occurs over time in the amount of days. 40 days and 40 nights. Jesus died and rose from the dead in the course of 3 days. If the bible is written by this smart being trying to relay such an important question, he would not allow this confusion. He would have one standard of time. Either 'day' in the bible means billions of years or 'day' means a 24 hour period. It should not mean both. The bible is of course is written entirely under the inspiration of god (2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work).
Once again we come back to the "something can't come from nothing" argument. However, once again, where does God come from? If God is not restricted by this, than anything should be allowed to be a constant. Also, Stephen Hawking talks about how particle waves spontaneously form up, which contain energy. So, some things can come from 'nothing'.
Another thing to think about is that people say the odds of the earth being fit for life is slim, and that we shouldn't be here if there isn't a being behind all of it. However, billions of years ago, it was not fit for us, and billions of years from now, it will also not be fit for life. So, our time is limited. People haven't been here for that long, and life on earth for people may be going away rather soon, in the next some thousand years. So, the conditions are right for life on earth, but for a very, very short amount of time. Just like in some areas of the world, for only a short amount of time, the conditions are right for farming, skiing, and certain sports. Actually, thinking about it, not every area on earth is inhabitable for humans. So, the conditions aren't exactly perfect.
Prophecies of the bible: the events considered prophecies are all events that are influenced by people. People could have read the old testament and then they would have worked towards that goal. It's also very possible that... the whole thing is made up. I find this to be very likely because there are a few million religions. Also, the majority of Christianity was stolen from religions before it's time. The story of Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, Virgin Birth, death of Jesus, etc, are all stories extremely similar to stories found in the stories of Greek Gods. In fact, you'll read that there was Greek God who had died and came back to life days later, saving his people. This story existed long before the bible. But, this debate is about theism. I do not find any of it possible. I feel as though, just as Stephen Hawking, that the universe does not need a god to make it possible. We have seen reasons for why we are here. Abiogenesis combined with evolution explains human, animal and plant life. Nothing in any holy text has been proved true. Yes, the bible does have some things that are true, but the bible is not the proof, it just provides the claim. Noah's Ark has not only not been proved to exist, it has been proved to be impossible with in the confines of earth. First off, all the water that has ever been on earth is all the water we will ever have. Water is constantly being recycled in bodies that absorb it, evaporation, precipitation, and absorbed in the ground. Water out of the ground, out of the oceans, and out of all the bodies of living organisms (which would kill them) would not be enough water to cover to earth at it's tallest point. Yes, at one point all of earth may have been under water, but not as much water as described in the bible.
Theism is highly unlikely. Theism also has too many claims. There are literally millions of theistic claims from millions of religions. If "theism" is correct, which theistic claim is right, and how come that one is more true that all the other millions of claims? Theism lacks the evidence that science provides. If we do not know the reason for something, claiming a god did it is not the answer. "I don't know" is not a reason to credit a god, rather it's a reason to keep looking for the answer.
That is my conclusion. Although there was no set structure for this debate, my opponent didn't have an argument to start off. Because I started off with an argument, I will not argue in the last round, making it so that we had equal chances at arguments.
Debate Round No. 3


JoePO10 forfeited this round.


Seriously? So close. Oh well. No argument as I previously mentioned.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by l3gendluk3 3 years ago
1) No athiest (by my definition, rejecting the claim of a God) clams that God doesn't exist, let alone " if you can't see God, he can't exist". Although we can see the effects of black holes electricity and the wind.

2) Those prophecies are claimed and proven only in the bible which, as I stated cannot be used as evidence. If there was any proof of the life of Jesus, the prophecy may be sound. For example - In Harry Potter and the prisoner of Azkaban, it was predicted that Harry is "going to work for the Ministry of Magic". In fact, later in his life, Harry works for the MM. Therefore there is a Wizard called Harry Potter who works for the MM somewhere in London.

3) Nothing can have a number of meanings depending on the context. The definition of 'nothing' differs in physics, logical, computational, mathematical and grammatical fields. Your statement "Nothing, DUH! , means nothing" doesnt help to define anything.

4) The double slit experiment doesn't prove "matter, atoms and particles, cannot exist", it proves photons display characteristics of both particles and waves depending on observation, putting the packet model into question. Maybe what you were referring to was the fact that quantum mechanics states that no quantum particle can be directly observed or measured.

5) You're statement of "Everything's made up of Energy" is correct as defined by E=MC^2 as matter is a compressed form of energy. Your point by this statement however, flies above me.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 3 years ago
In order to prove that something exists, you have to define it.
Since God can't be defined, there's no way to prove that God exists.
But it can be easily proved that God cannot not exist.
If God didn't exist, nothing & no one else would either.

Claiming that if you can't see God, he can't exist, doesn't make sense.
Do you want to claim that electricity, the wind, black holes, etc. , can't exist because you can't see them?

If you want to find Biblical prophecies that have been fulfilled,
why don't you look for them?
Here's just one:
Christ told his disciples before the Crucifixion that he'd be back.
According to the Bible he was walking around perfectly normally a few days after the crucifixion.
How's THAT for a fulfilled prophecy?
Nothing, DUH! , means nothing.
As proved in Quantum Physics (the Young Experiment, etc. ),
matter, atoms, particles, cannot exist.
Everything's made up of Energy, (Probability Waves, Interference Waves) .
Posted by l3gendluk3 3 years ago
First of all, con was describing how you, pro, were using the God of the gaps. "The simplest of questions" how did life begin" has yet to be answered by scientists". You then go on to explain that life is so improbable it must be created. Just because scientists can't explain something and that the bible offers an explanation doesn't make divine creation any more probable.
The bible offers many correct statements (I'm not sure, but there must be at least one statement in it of how the sky is blue) but it offers no predictions. The bible is also based off assumptions such as
1) the Christian God exists
2) God has communicated with humans
3) God tells the truth etc
Once you prove that each of the assumptions made by the bible are true, you can use the bible. Until you do so, you cannot say that the bible speaks the truth about God's existence.

I reject both debaters use of something coming out of nothing as nothing has not been clearly defined. If nothing is defined as physical matter, one could argue virtual particles and other quantum events, while if nothing is defined as the lack of matter and energy, almost all arguments would be invalid as we have not had any experience with 'nothing'

While I do not have much experience with bible prophecies, I have a hard time believing them due to the numerous translations/edits that has occurred to it. What would be a pretty big eye opener would be a prediction (because for it to be scientific, it must be able to predict something) about the world that wasn't known back then. For example a verse stating that all matter is made up of atoms.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NoMagic 3 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con for not skipping any rounds. Noticed a few grammar errors for Pro. However, I can never seem to get rid of all mine. Arguments to Con. Pro tries an argument from ignorance fallacy.