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

There is evidence for the existence of a God.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 429 times Debate No: 105689
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




By God, I mean a creator of the universe.


By God I mean a being that cannot be proven in the first place.

Checkmate Theist.
Debate Round No. 1


Evidence does not equal proof.

I am using my definition for the debate.

I am going to use the teleology / intelligent design argument, which states that the complexity of the universe should be attributed to a creator.


No you are not, you are going to use the concede argument where you concede that I am the winner.
Debate Round No. 2

capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality Greek gods of love and war
: a person or thing of supreme value had photos of baseball's gods pinned to his bedroom wall
: a powerful ruler Hollywood gods that control our movies' fates
a : an outward sign : indication
b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
: one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against one's accomplices
" in evidence
: to be seen : conspicuous
trim lawns " are everywhere in evidence"Amer. Guide Series: N.C.
: as evidence

In short, God does not imply an inability to prove the existence of God, and evidence is not conclusive proof.

Anyway... there is research concerning how many factors are necessary to create a stable universe, and it shows that it is difficult to have the factors line up just right to create a universe suitable for life.


You want to play the source vote game? Okay. Nice definitions you showed, they are literally not an argument.

Now time for some source pow-pow.
Heres the basic argument showing why there"s no proof for God (as defined above).

1. Humans will never have the cognitive capacity to directly understand anything with infinite powers or qualities.

2. Humans will never have intellectual reasons to indirectly demonstrate the existence of anything with infinite powers or qualities.

3. There are only two kinds of proofs for God: direct understanding or indirect demonstration.

Conclusion: Humans will never have any proofs for God.

Oh wait, I only needed one, would you look at that?
Debate Round No. 3


First of all, I never said that God has to be infinite, but let's assume that.

Plus, I'm not saying I have a proof as in proving that the angles of a quadrilateral equal 360 degrees.

I'm just talking about evidence as in if I had to defend for the existence of God, I could bring a piece of evidence to the court that the judge will not immediately knock down.

Anyway, I believe that the universe is so fine-tuned that it would be difficult for it to happen without a God, like if I had the source code for this website and said that nobody created it.

Sure, I could have a random text generator, so it would eventually create the source code, but I would need the source code for the random text generator, which would also be difficult to imagine to come about without a creator.


Well where is the evidence?

You have yet to present it.
Debate Round No. 4


Design => Creator
Creator => God

You might be able to come up with counterarguments. However, this is good-enough evidence for a courtroom, so it is good enough for this debate. Vote Pro!


Actually a YouTube video about some guy's theory is not evidence for a courtroom.

I watched this video, he never gives evidence of a God, he gives evidence of how amazing reality is.

Thank you for this easy win.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
>Reported vote: BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: God doesn't exist. Con by default.

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD.
Posted by NicholasGomezTillar 7 months ago
This debate is stupid on so many levels. First off, Pro, where is your evidence? I saw nothing even remotely close to evidence of the existence of God. Con can't argue if you can't even provide anything; which is pathetic.
Note: I am a Christian.

Secondly, you both argued over what the definition of "God" you're going to use; for 2 ROUNDS. Con should've just excepted the definition of "God," so yall could actually debate.

Thirdly, Pro, there is plenty of evidence for the existence of God. From Georges Lemaitre to C.S. Lewis's books.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 7 months ago
God clearly does not exist.
No votes have been placed for this debate.