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

There is no proof for the Christian 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 371 times Debate No: 91188
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)




I will argue that there is no evidence for the Christian God. I will make it clear that I think there is no evidence for any god but I have chosen the Christian God because Christians are the religious majority on this site.

The first round is acceptance.


Try not to use circular arguments.
Keep it civil.
If there is a valid reason for missing a round open with your excuse on the next round.
Use sources if you can.


Who cares what you think?

And prove there is no proof for the Christian God.

But before you do that prove that you have a rational way to know truth from fiction?
Debate Round No. 1


On a topic like this I speak for most on my side as you do for yours. To add, people who care about advancing the human species should care what I have to say. In fact, anyone who wants to better themselves and others would care about what everyone has to say. These people see the benefit to exposing themselves to other ideas that challenge theirs.

I know truth from fiction because the scientific method and those who practice it are tried and true. You may ask how I know they are true. My senses. How do I know they are right? I don't, neither do you, and neither does anyone else. It is one flaw of humans. My orange might be different than yours. As long as our oranges don't change my orange is my true orange and your orange is your true orange. We are talking about the same thing but we just see different colors. However, when it comes to existence and proof you can see those as any color you want but you deny them. There my be a fruit on the table and we both say it is orange, our oranges might be different but the fruit is still there. Denying the fruit is there isn't the same as seeing a different color under the same name.

Proofs against god:

Evolution: Evolution destroys creationism. Proof for evolution you ask? 1: Evolution observed in a lab in bacteria. ( If god created perfect creatures why do they change over time. Is he changing them to be better? Then he didn't make perfect creatures.

The true age of the Earth: The earth is prove to be 4.543 billion years old. This isn't very accurate as the Earth's surface is constantly being recycled. This article continues to explain how radiometric dating is accurate enough to determine the age of the Earth. This article goes more in depth (

Creation of the Bible: Yes, the bible and its history causes many to doubt to truth of Christianity. Proof against god was probably a bit strong for this one but it still combats god. If Jesus ever existed (that's a whole other debate), then he was born around 0. Scriptures specific for certain communities were created shortly after they were converted but the bible used today wasn't widely used and believed until centuries after his death. To continue, this new religious authority changes Jesus's message. The future church was filled with corruption. The bible doesn't represent Jesus.


Notice how delusion and narcissistic this fool is. He claims to speak for the majority of millions of people. That is cute, but given that he may know 100 people well, the claims is so silly, it demonstrates delusion. Then he has the gaul to say that if you want to better yourself and others, you should care what he has to say. If this is not narcissism, I do not know what is.
Putting aside this dude's mental illness, he has given us no reason why should care what he says. In fact, his mental illness is reason why we should not.

He then claims to know truth from fiction, but then admits that his claim to knowledge is premised on his senses being right when he has no idea if they are right. In other words, while trying to make himself look wise, he has admitted that he is does not know if he knows anything, which is to say he is utterly ignorant. Indeed, ironically, he claims to know truth via the scientific method? Is it true that one can know truth via the scientific method? No, for such a truth claim is not subject to testing by the scientific method. In other words, his epistemology is self-refuting.

He then offers three "proofs" that God does not exist. But they are not proof at all. Indeed, God could exist and the earth be very old. Thus, this fool has failed to prove his case evne looking at it in the most popular light. But let us look at these claims in detail.

Evolution disproves creation. Assuming evolution is true, that would be a true claim. But he has not demonstrated that goo-to-the-zoo evolution is true. He cites some silly website, which he cannot tell us is true, that ays bacteria changes. But into what? Did someone observe bacteria changing into a cat? Nope. So, he has no proved this silly claim. He then implies that if God created perfect creatures, they would not need to change over time. But why not? He does not tell us. It is always funny to me to see fools deny God exists and then explain to me how He would act in perfect detail. Did I not say delusioal.

He then says that the "true" age of the earth proves God does not exit, but he does not tell us how. He states that the earth is 4.543B years old, but he does not prove this. He refers to radiometric dating, but seems utterly unaware of how it works and why such a conclusion is based on assumptions, not science, and that if I change the assumptions I can come up with a radically different figure. In fact, I challenge this fool to state what insitutition of higher learning provided him his credentials in chemistry and/or geology? His post shows he has no such education, but we will give him the benefit of the doubt. He can then tell us how, if he knows a runner's present speed and his present location only, he can tell me how long the runner has been running. This is a simple math problem that most evolutions cannot comprehend and yet they all expect me to take their claims as to what science reveals seriously.

This fool then states that his doubt "combats" God. How deluded and narcissistic is this fool? Can we please have a rule that only intelligent atheists post here?
Debate Round No. 2


Somehow, I really don't know how, you managed to misunderstand everything I said.

I'm not saying people should listen to me to better themselves, I said they should listen to others. Which is me, you, and everyone else that isn't the person I'm referring to. I'm saying that they should value your opinion as much as they should mine but they don't have to agree with both.

As far as senses. We know they are right because we can compare them with others who share their experiences and find correlations in what was sensed.

Fine here's a better website:
As far as bacteria-to-cat transitions. That doesn't just happen. The bacteria were found to have minor changes, the transition from single to multicelled organisms is one that takes millions even billions of years. Picking two specific species who you know well are completely different and stating one species doesn't birth another isn't proof against evolution. If you think it is, take a high school biology course.

A runner is far different than the natural decay of radioactive materials. The question you should have asked in comparison is "If there is a 100m long track and a runner runs at a constant speed and finishes the track in 20 secs, and the runner is already 20m down the track, how long has he been running?" (4secs) Correlating science to prove: You take the amount of radioactive material in a rock, measure it, measure how much has decayed, find the half-life of the material and find out how long, using cross-multiplication, it has being decaying.

My own doubt? If you and other Christians got your noses out of your bibles in school you would have learned the history and Christianity, the bible was a post-Jesus creation and Christianity has ever since been corrupted, twisted, and changed.

Before you accept a debate try using facts instead of your opinions. And, if your gonna try to disprove science with "science", read up the "science" your using.


You seem confused, are you saying people should listen to you to better themselves or not? If not, why are you wasting our time? If yes, who the heck are you that we should consider your musings as anything other than the deluded rantings of narcissistic mad man?

How do you compare your senses with others without using your senses? Your rules said no circular arguments and yet to validate your sense with your senses is circular reasoning. Surely, your worldview is not build n the irrational?

I have no doubt you can find a million biased web-sites that claim all kinds of scientific nonsense. I am looking for proof that the Christ God does not exist. So far, you have provided none. But it is interesting that you tacit admit that neither you nor anyone else has observed one creature evolving into another since it takes "millions even billions of years" [sic]. By admitting such, you exited the realm of science and put forth nothing but atheist mysticism, which is not proof against God, but is more proof of your circular reasoning. Perhaps if you were actually a credentialed scientist, instead of a victim of government school indoctrination, you would know this.

Actually, I asked the question I wanted to ask. For a runner's present speed at any given point on a race course is all you have as far as radiometric dating is concerned. You have the present decay rate and the present ratio of parent to daughter isotopes, which is the point on the course. What you do not have is the ratio of parent to daughter isoptopes at time zero, which makes radiometric data irrelevant to the question of the age of the earth Again, it is simple math: You cannot solve for two varriables with one equation. This is why you had to insert into my analogy that length of the track. But that is what you are trying to solve for. Pray tell how you know scientifically the "length of the track" or the parent-to-daughter ratio at time zero? When you admit you have no idea, that the ratio at time zero is assumed, your age of the earth argument falls apart by merely rejecting your assumption. Ahhhh, the value of an education is science and logic.

And your ignorance as to the Bible is manifest. The Bible consists of what is known as the Old Testament and the New Testament. You must have missed day 1 in Bibel 101. The OT preceeded Jesus by hundreds to thousands of years. And while the NT was written after Jesus, so what? Have you never read a biography that was written after the object of the biography was dead? Does this disqualify them? If so, 99.9999999% of all biographies are of not merit in your silly mind? But do tell us of these "corruptions"? Tell us by what standard of truth do you say the Bible is corrupt and tell us how you know this so-called standard of truth is true? It sounds like we have more circular reasoning and confirmation bias here.

Oh, and as of the two of us, only I am a credentialed scientist, I can tell you your silly notion that I am using science to disprove science is foolish. I am using science, math and logic to destroy your understanding of science, though given that you are irrational, deluded and narcissitic, I understand why you confuse your perception of reality with realty. Please, child, if this is the best you have, go away. You are embarrassing yourself.
Debate Round No. 3


I'm finding it very hard to have a valued discussion with a person who is only interested in blind faith and insulting others. I will reiterate. If a person wanted to better themselves they would listen to everyones opinion, yours and mine. That is a fair thing to say. How is it narcissist (excessive or erotic interest in oneself and one's physical appearance.) to suggest that someone values everyones opinions including my own. To continue, you have managed to derail this entire debate by switching it how do I know Truth from Fiction rationally. I will add however, there is no way for me to tell truth from fiction and neither for you. You know, the fact that you seem to think you can know truth from fiction and atheists can't is very narcissistic.

I'll throw my two cents in about the argument in the comments section. The BOP is on you my friend. In legal battles the BOP is on the procesecution to prove the defendants guilt. I titled this debate "There is no proof for the Christian God". I am positioned pro which means I'm not saying "There is prove against god" I am saying "There is no proof for god" and because I said no proof theirs nothing to prove in that statement. So it is your job to prove me wrong. I made a statement I'm not guilty and it is your job to prove me guilty, get it?

I really really don't like discussing this part of evolution because it takes people like you so long to realize that observation isn't the only form of evidence. In fact, it's very weak. Once one person has visualized something they can only express it through recreations and they may be lying.

And still no understanding of radiometric dating. No isotopes are lost so the original amount of isotopes is father plus daughter. How to find how long a collection of isotopes have been decaying: daughters(rate of decay(fathers+daughters)/(fathers+daughters). I find it hard to believe that a "credentialed scientist" doesn't know how the basics of radiometric dating unless of course they work at the Creation Museum.


I have no doubt that you find truth to be valueless. And I can assure you that given the content of your posts, listening to you would retard intellectual growth, especially now that you gave admitted to knowing nothing. And yes, when an ignorant fool thinks people should listen to them to improve their lives, they are showing they are both deluded and narcissistic.

This is confirmed by admitting you that you know nothing but then in the next phrase pretend to know that I share your ignorance. Putting aside this contradiction in so few words, I assure you that your being blind does not in any way, shape or form mean all men are blind.

And your two cents confirms your ignorance. Again, he who makes the claim has the burden of proof. You claimed that there is no proof for the Christian God. This, the burden of proof is on you. And you have yet to offer any proof of this claim despite this being our four go-round. And by being "pro" you are saying that you can prove this claim. So far, nothing. Perhaps you buy the old ignorant atheist canard that one cannot prove a negative. And yet I can prove bachelor's are not married, the U.S. Senate does not have 101 members, that kings are not female and that there is no T-Rex in my SUV as I write this. Thus, one can prove a negative and must prove it when they assert the claim. You have utterly failed. Indeed, you have merely demonstrated mental illness, gross ignorance and bad logic.

With your nonsense about observation, you have confirmed you know nothing of science, for the scientific method is nothing but observation, testability and repeatability. You have admitted that evolution has not been observed, making it not scientific. Rather, it is atheist mysticism believed only by children at war with reality.

And I did not say isotopes are lost, I said that the the mother product decays into the daughter product at a given present rate and you have no idea how long this process has been going on because you do not know the ratio of mother to daughter isotopes at time zero. Given your ignorance of science, and everything else by your own admission, it does not surprise me that you do not understand this whole issue. And btw, when an isotope decays, the mother isotope goes away, becoming the daughter isotope. Thus, at one half life of U238, there is half of the amount of U238 and that much more of U236. Basic chemistry. Please get educated beyond some biased YouTube channel before you discuss this topic in the future.

As your dropped your argument against the Bible, I will assume this is simple another topic of which you are utterly ignorant.

Now, ignorant man, anything else?
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Iamdebate 5 months ago
I am enjoying this fool debate others.
Posted by ConserativeDemocrat 5 months ago
I like how you just say I'm brainwashed with no evidence and you provide no counter arguments to my claim.
Posted by ViceRegent 5 months ago
It is a true story and Pope Francis is child of Satan.
Posted by Orose_Khan 5 months ago
Yo, creationism was a STORY. Pope Francis himself believes in evolution and has said that God got the ball rolling.
Posted by ViceRegent 5 months ago
Does not this fool admitting he knows nothing end the debate?
Posted by ConserativeDemocrat 5 months ago
Haha, I guess you can't answer my points and will instead blame the government.
Posted by ViceRegent 5 months ago
Good grief. This fool is clearly a victim of the government school system who was taught to value arrogance about knowledge and wisdom. No wonder he is a Democrat, he needs others to do his thinking for him. Moving on.
Posted by ConserativeDemocrat 5 months ago
How are agnostic atheists fools? Because they believe in logic and reason while all religious people have is faith?

I will ignore your definition of an ad hominem fallacy because you didn't read the definition correctly.

And finally, prove God exists.
Posted by ViceRegent 5 months ago
Actually, no you do not. Indeed, you do not even know how to property research issues of logic, for a general dictionary is not a valid source as to a term of art. According to the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy: The ad hominem fallacy involves bringing negative aspects of an arguer, or their situation, to bear on the view they are advancing. In other words, you must not only say something negative about the person making the argument but also that the negative thing impacts the merit of the argument. That I did not do. My opponent being an atheist makes him a fool. But it is not because he is a fool that his argument is wrong. His argument is wrong because it is irrational. Thus, I did not commit the ad hominem fallacy. Get an education, child, before you try to run with the big dogs.

If there is no way to disprove the existence of God, then you agree with me that Pro cannot meet his burden of proof. I hope you vote for me at the end of the debate. But his inability to prove his irrationally-held belief does not shift the burden of proof to me. As I am making no claim regarding God, I have no burden of proof whatsoever, your foolish claims notwithstanding.

BTW, in logic, there is no distinction between "positive" and "negative" claims. This is something atheist fools made up to avoid their inability to support the claims with arguments.
Posted by ConserativeDemocrat 5 months ago
I know exactly what as hominem is. From
"Marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made." You are calling him a fool and saying he's brainwashed instead of actually making an argument. In fact, YOU used an ad hominem attack on me, calling me brainwashed because I informed you of the burden of proof. Obviously there is no way to disprove God. And since you are making the positive claim, (God exists) YOU are the one who needs to prove that. Asking someone to disprove God is like someone asking you to disprove Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Unicorns, Dragons, or aliens. That is impossible. That is why the burden of proof lies on you; the one who made the positive claim.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ConserativeDemocrat 5 months 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: Conduct: Con repeatedly insults Pro, so conduct goes to Pro. Arguments: Con never provides evidence for a god, thus he doesn't fufil the BoP. As for his rebuttals, he provides no evidence for his claims and just asserts that Pro is wrong because he is a fool and because Pro uses science. Con never proves his claims, and he doesn't post any links. He relies purely on faith. Pro wins.