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

There is no evidence that a god exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 6/5/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,469 times Debate No: 34555
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




I will be arguing that there is no known evidence that a God exists.
Con will be arguing that there is known evidence that a God exists.

By God I am refering to a creator or diety of some form as referred to in religions and thiesm. The burden of proof in will fall with Con to provide evidence, as Con will be going first I ask that they leave their last round free of argument to keep it even.

I thank my opponent in advance for taking on this debate and hope that we both enjoy it.


for my evidence that god exists I will claim the fact that Something can't come from nothing. Simply by using this fact, I have just decimated Pro's argument. I believe it's clear that something divine, outside the rules of psychics must have created something from nothing. [1] [2]

Definition of God: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe. [3]

Sources: [1] [2] [3]
Debate Round No. 1


I thank Con for his response and argument in round 1. Although he states
he has decimated my argument he has simply asserted assumptions which
while granting his argument, are logically flawed and contradictory within
them self.

Cons logical contradiction

Con asserts 2 points, which when we look back at it,
completely contradict each other.

1. Something can't come from nothing.
2. Therefore God must have created something from nothing.

If premise 2 is correct, then premise one is false,
as it has been done.

Something From Nothing

Lets look at this a bit more. Con asserts that God must exist because something
can't come from nothing. This assumes that he knows something HAS come from
nothing. I ask Con to please back this up, since to the best of my knowledge
we do not have an example of such an event. If Con is stating the creation of the
universe, there is no proof that the universe was created out of nothing, or
indeed that it was created.

I will also go ahead and say that the Big Bang Theory does not state that we
were created out of nothing. All the matter that the entire universe is made
of was already present (albeit in a different form) at the Big Bang.

Con has not stated what he means by nothing, what I will say though is that in
quantum physics something very much CAN come from nothing.

The Natural State

If you can define nothing, and back it up, then we could assume in that situation
there are two states of existence: something and nothing. Con could then
that to explain any state change from the more natural to the more un-natural
you need an outside agent such as God. For natural to natural would occur
regardless of a Godly presence.

Why should nothing be more natural than something? Nobel Laureate Physicist
Frank Wilczek states
that if you form a state that has no quarks or anti-quarks
in it, its totally unstable and It spontaneously
starts producing quark-antiquark
pairs. Therefore the state of no-thing cannot maintain symmetry. It backs up

the metaphysical view that No-Thing had an imperative to generate Some-Thing.

With this in mind, we expect that the natural state of existence to be something
rather than nothing regardless of requiring God. In fact it would take a God to
maintain an eternal state of nothing!

Therefore, God

Lets assume for a second that something cannot come form nothing, and that
Con has evidence of such an event (even though this would prove something can
come from nothing), and that nothing is the more natural state. This is not in
itself a proof of God. Simply a proof of something which understands physics
better than us.

We could just as easily say that a breed of physics bending aliens did it. All
that Con would have done is show an event that we cannot explain one way
or another, the evidence that God specifically did it still needs presenting. You
can't just say "Something we can't explain happened, therefore... God!" You
can believe it, as said in Cons round 1, but belief is not proof.

Within a box

Lets go a step further, and assume that aliens, or any other explanation was
disproved. Lets say we can categorically say that a force outside of our universe
100% must have created our universe from a state in which the universe
absolutely did not exist. Now, that's alot of assumptions, but lets even grant
all those for a second. How do we know that absolutely nothing exists outside
our universe.

In something similar to Plato's Allegory Of The Cave, Lets say we have only lived
in a box. The box has no windows, you cant hear, see or perceive in any way
anything outside the box. You, and everybody you have ever met live in this
box. You study this box, walk around in this box and live our your entire life in
this box. Could you say "something must have created this box, it must have
been a God"? We do this with animals, both as pets and in safari's etc. The
animals ability to not venture outside or perceive anything beyond the set
enclosure does not make us a God.

Now put this analogy to our context. The universe is a box. All our current study,
understanding, sensual experience and context comes from within this box.
How can we know that "nothing" was outside the box. We can't go out and
check. In fact its just as plausible that outside the box of the universe is a kid
with 7 science sets for a school project and our box is one of 7. This kid isn't
all powerful, doesn't have all wisdom and who's to say he's good? Maybe
after school is done he's going to set the box on fire, or stomp on it!

The God contradiction

Is God powerful enough to create something that He Himself cannot
understand? If yes, then he is not all-knowing. If no, then he is not

Can God create a rock so heavy that even God himself cannot lift it?
If so, then the rock is now unliftable by God, limiting the Gods power,
and meaning that he is not all powerful, If not? he is not all powerful.

God, as described as both all-knowing and all-powerful, is a contradictory
entity and cannot exist. Therefore, your definition of God as stated in Round 1 cannot exist.

The Evil Man

Con asserts that God must be good. Why? I assert that it is just as plausible
for a being that is greatly evil to have created everything. If Con proved all
of the above points in his favour, surely the being to create something from
nothing could just as easily be perfectly evil. After all, we live in a world full
of war, hatred, starvation, slavery, disease and death. Surely a perfectly good
God would have created a universe that is free of these things.


Cons logic contradicts itself. Something can come from nothing.
If you have nothing, it is likely to create something, naturally, without God.
It is just as likely that a school kid, alien or perfectly evil being created everything,
instead of God. The concept of God is in itself a logical contradiction, and cannot

Due to all of the above points, I think I have shown that there is no evidence
for Gods existence, and possibly, even further than that, there is evidence that
no God by our current definition exists.




When everything in the universe is against what you're saying, then yes I will gladly pronounce that you have been decimated. ( You are even evidence for god.)


1. There is no contradiction since God can work within the laws of physics if he so chooses. He can also bypass those laws, because he is all powerful. If he could not bypass the very laws which he created, he would not be all powerful. So when it suits him, he can work within the parameters of nature whenever he so desires. God can also defy the laws of physics, again, because he is omnipotent. [1] [2] [3]

Something from Nothing

According to current Quantum Theory something can come from nothing. The explanation of why that happens has not yet been formed so the earlier statement by Pro should no be considered relevant. [4]


The existence of evil must be present in order to have free-will.

The Natural State

As I said before god is outside of physics.

Thus God

Yes, the explanations is God, and always will be since quantum physics will fail to find a way to make something from nothing. (Sorry to burst your bubble.)

Sources: [1] [2] [3] [4]
Debate Round No. 2


Have had to type up this round very quickly, hope it all makes sense! I thank con for the points made, but con has failed to prove God, I will show why;


Con asserts that God can work within the laws of physics. The only way to show this is if he provides physical evidence of God.

Something From Nothing

Con asserts "According to current Quantum Theory something can come from nothing. The explanation of why that happens has not yet been formed so the earlier statement by Pro should no be considered relevant."

We do not need to explain why grass grows in order to accept that it does. We have observed it growing, therefore if we argue that grass does not grow, the observation would be perfectly valid. Just like, we may not yet know why something comes from nothing, but we have observed it, therefor in an argument of wether something can come from nothing, it is perfectly valid.

Also, In Cons opening round, his entire argument bases around the fact that something CANNOT come from nothing. In round 2 he has admitted that somethng CAN come from nothing. We both agree that something can come from nothing, especially within the confines of quantum physics. If something can come from nothing, Cons argument fails.


Con asserts that evil must exist for free will. I would put forward that with an all knowing and all powerful God, fre will would just be an illusion. God would be all powerful, therefore he could create any any world that owuld have any possible outcome. He is all knowing, so he knows every outcome of every world he may create. Therefore, he can create a world withought death, rape, famine, slavery or negativety. Saying that they are there because of freewill just means he allowed it to be there in his chosen creation.

Also, you would say free will is the choices you are allowed to make, you could turn left, or you could turn right, for example. But, in Gods chosen creation, out of every other possibility that ever could be concieved, he chose to create the one in which you turn whatever way you do, he knew that you would do that when he created everything, and therefore you havent made the choice now, you are simply acting that choice out. All the choices, ever, would have been made when God choose to create the world where you make those specific choices.

Therefore, God cannot be all good, because he choose not to create an all good world, he chose to create ones where children suffer, rapists walk free and bad things happen. If God is not all good, Cond definition of God does not exist.

The Natural State

Con misunderstands my argument here. this argument states that nothing to something is completely natural. With or withought a God, you would have nothing to something, as we both agree on above. Cons argument asumes that the natural state is something to something and therefore you need god to be involved that to change.

My argument of natural state refutes this, proves that you dont need a god for nothing to produce something, and therefore his argument of such based on natural state asumptions are invalid. Cons point of "god is outside of physics." actually has nothing to do with this paragraph and changes it in no way, since the evidence that he points to of God, could happen without a God, naturally. Therefore, this still stands.

Cons conclusion

Con asserts "since quantum physics will fail to find a way to make something from nothing", the only way he can make this claim is if he can travel through time or tell the future. Asserting the old "therefore, God" answer is not proof.

There are many things both religios people and scientists thought they would never find or manage, for example, in the 1700's can you imagine anyone believing me if I went back and told them "By the way, I can create fire from a box(lighter), put people in a box(tv), tell someone on the other side of the planet something in under a second(internet) and control things like magic (wireless). No, but that doesn't mean we didnt manage.

Just because we dont fully understand things now, doesn't mean science never will. Lack of knowledge doesnt mean you can insert God to fill the gaps, just means we need more study.


danielawesome12 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Con has forfeited his round. Please vote Pro.
I thank Con for the debate.


danielawesome12 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


I thank Con for the debate. Con has forfeited again.

Vote Pro! :)


danielawesome12 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by David.McIntosh 5 years ago
Natural-Phil, this is true, and I wish more people accepted this. However, unfortunately I live in a country that is tied to a religion, and if debates like this don't take place, a lot of people take it for granted that it is fact.

If that happens too often, my 9 month old will grow up going to a school where she is taught untruths. For reasons like these, debates like these are needed, in my opinion anyways! :)
Posted by Natural-Phil 5 years ago
It is amusing to read these endless debates. The fact is if you believe in any sort of deity proof is something you learn to do without, hence vicious cycle of faith vs fact.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
This is hard to read it is such a severe beating...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 5 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: OUCH, oh and FF. (sources were weak too weak to earn the point, I mean yahoo answers?)
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 5 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con. F.F. the last 3 rounds.