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

There is no proof that the Christian God exists.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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: 7/7/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,001 times Debate No: 35360
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (34)
Votes (2)




Since Con gets to put his argument over in round 1, I ask that Cons round 5 be left for closing comments rather than argument to keep it fair.

"There is no proof that the Christian God exists."

By proof I mean an evidence strong enough for establishing a fact or a truth. By Christian God I mean the God refereed to in the Christian Bible, which is worshipped by Christians. By exists I mean to have actual being. That is, for the God in question to be real and actual.

Con will have Burden Of Proof to prove that the Christian God exists, as.

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


Hello and I will agree to your proposal on how to keep our 5th round free now to my opening statement.
I would love to ridden this full of opinion but rather for now I will post things holding greater actuality. Now lets debate.
Now to provide you head room and to bring in your justification to believe he doesn't exist I will leave you with only one piece of evidence to start things off.
For you see even the greatest mind of science, MR. Einstein, even believed in God. He even argued debated and hypothesized and so forth on the matter. Here are my starting articles.
Here is a lovely video representation on how people believe this ordeal went.

Here is more on the matter and a unique ramification to a rather unusual but probable way to view this matter.
I will rest on this all existence is of two things science and religion and Einstein once said religion without science is ignorant but science without religion is blind.
I look forward to our debate and fold this round to it's official close.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank Con for taking on this debate.

While I agree with the statements in the links provided that cold would not be measured, simply the lack of heat, and the same with darkness/light, I disagree on the moral front.

To say that evil is simply the lack of good negates morally neutral actions completely.

Furthermore, in the same links, einstien is quoted as saying "none of this, to him, pointed in the direction of a supreme being."

Eitherway, what his personal beliefs were do not count as any proof of a God, and defnitly not a specific one of the Christian God.

I will make my stance clear that I am not argueing that no god exists, just that there is no proof that one does infact exist. I look forward to Con providing proof of such existance.


Thank you for coming back to me now I would like to defend my front on evil is none existent. I know you accept my other ramifications, so where is the difference. Let me phrase it like this all evil has it's own justification and there for is a ideology no a factual existence, also neutral doesn't exist for if you choose to not make a choice. Well you still made a choice.
But I digress let's move on to finer points.
Here are a few articles to read before progressing.

Here is a article to further the points I have made towards God as in energy.

Here is a article to further my point on the world is to perfect for a higher being to not have been involved.

Now allow me to say this what pray tell, what is irrefutable proof in actuality.
The atom, molecules, Sun as the center of the solar system, and a round planet where all theories for thousands of years. That didn't make them any less true.
Yes we got to seem them with our own eyes through our technology. So there for as we progress as a whole we find more and more to be true do we not.
So riddle me this all have the theory if I can't see or hear or feel it. Well it doesn't exist.
I bet that's what the Japanese where thinking at Hiroshima (No insult is meant by this.)
So here is my question what do people see fit as validation of the lord.
Think of this aren't love and hate, cold and hot, and time and dark all theories. Why yes yes they are. None of them are true or proven and yet we know they are true why is this?
Well we can feel it so.
Same with God.
We as a species are yet to have the ability to push God beyond theory such as atoms but we can prove his existence rather easily.
How you ask?
Well walk outside what do you see a perfectly made world with a balance as delicate as glass and yet it stands. All the right conditions and such a perfect scenario that mathematics and science can't comprehend, so what made it all happen? Or how about those unexplainable miracles where people survive that in which couldn't hope to make sense?
These points easily point to a higher being.

Side note
First I disproved ideology aka evil now I must prove that there is a higher being, in the next come back I will prove it is our christian God. Now back to the story.

So let me further evidence beyond these little things to a higher being.
What of atheistic people, they claim they don't believe in God and there isn't a God, and they want no association with him. Yet them like many other supposed bad people are commonly drawn to the Cross. Hasn't anyone notice the mystic influence it seems to have on people, even when people claim their distance from God they are almost never actually all that far away.
Lets further play on the feel thing shall we.
Also bring to your consideration the true christian people. You know those ones that seemed enlightened somehow as if all the world can't bring them down, their fortification is beyond a perceived norm. So question here is. Are they not connected in a relationship with God as the Christians always say? Plus think of this the true ones I am mentioning have a certain aura about them. If you have ever been around one you know what I mean. It seems they can help lighten your day with a simple smile and that itself should bring that strange yet happy feeling that comes with it. Well like love hate and all the rest that is what it is, your feeling a higher being.

So let me rest for now on this.
Just like Murphy s law sir. There is no way to prove it exists. Yet when a bad day comes you sure know it does. God could hold some relevance in that direction and here is a article that brings up this sort of process.

I now hand over this round to a close and look forward to the next.
Debate Round No. 2


I thank Con for the last response, however it still does not give any evidence for the existence of God.

Good and Evil

Con has asked “
I know you accept my other ramifications, so where is the difference.
The difference is you are comparing the measurement of morals to the measurement to heat and light, which are measures of energy radiation.

Taking heat, in Celsius for example. We measure how far from the point of zero degrees it is. We could just as easily measure it from the point where everything melts, and measure how cold it is from compared to that point. Take light, we compare it to when there is absolutely none there.

Just because these things are measured in this way, does not prove that evil is simply the absence of good. What your doing could be seen as the fallacy of false attribution, and you could apply it the same way to left and right. You could say left is simply the absence of right, however this, just like good and evil, would negate completely central movements. What is you don’t turn left OR right? And you go straight forward. We measure left and right from the same central point, and the amount they come away from that central point. This is how morals are. To say “not making a choice is still a choice in itself” is true, but that in itself does not mean that the choice has any moral value what so ever. We have the central point of neutral, and from there we can measure whether a decision or act is morally good or morally bad.

If I tap my right pinky on the keyboard, quietly, for no reason, with no benefit or ongoing effect from it, what you are saying is that this act is measureable by good an act it is, and if it doesn’t do any good, then by lack of good, it would be doing evil? I can’t see any good from this action, but to call this an evil action would be absolutely crazy. I would call this morally neutral; it doesn’t do any good or any bad. The same is true of any action, thought, or thing that does absolutely no good or no bad.

From this we can see that good is not measured the same as light against dark or hot from cold, it is similar more so to left and right, with the completely morally neutral in between.

Perfect World... Therefore, God!

Con points to our perfect world, I hear this all the time. That our world would not be so “perfect” without some divine intervention along the way or a perfect creator.

Firstly, let me ask on a moral note. How is a world with paedophiles, rapists, murderers, genocide, infections, diseases, violence, hate, anger, inequality and corruption a “perfect” world. Our world is full of these in every single country, we kill and do bad things all the time. We can be born to a prince or born to a house made out of paper bags, at the mere fate of chance. How is this perfect?

On a bigger note, of course we’re going to have that “perfect address” as it were. Life wouldn’t grow if we were on a planet too hot or two cold. And we have not explored space enough to know there are not similar planets with the same conditions and results. Science has shown that nature naturally corrects itself through evolution and perfects flaws itself. If anything, it would be more convincing if you showed things going against that without reason.

Something Can’t Come From Nothing / Youtube link

While on the surface this sounds correct, quantum physics shows that something Can come from nothing, nullifying the youtube link you have sent.

Your link also says it is not unreasonable to assume that God did all of this creation. Sorry, but this debate is not working on assumptions, it is unreasonable to assume anything not grounded in fact, therefor it IS unreasonable to assume this until proven otherwise. You have shown no proof for this God that apparently created everything.

Your video says that there are only 2 possibilities. A dumb vague thing as the source, or God. Why are these the only 2 possibles? There is any number of possible. For all we know, a group of aliens in a separate universe have been messing with their chemistry set and accidently created a universe in their bedroom. Or the universe may have created itself in a never ending cycle where the end of the universe converges in on itself and goes through a process whereby it starts a new universe, with all the energy from the previous one continuing on. These don’t require god.. so your video is wrong that there’s only 2.


You put forward between your arguement and video link that god must have created things because everything is so complex. Let me put it this way...

You say complex things need a creator.
You say the world/universe is complex, therefore it needs a creator.
God is the creator.

A complex world needs a complex God
Therefore, God needs a creator, and cannot be God.

Smiles And Feelings

You have said in your argument that you can feel God because an enlightened persons smile can brighten your day. There is plenty explanation for why a smile is infectious in the study of physiology, that doesn’t mean God did it. We are build to show and respond to happy expressions. We have these as safeguards, just like much of the animal kingdom. We have these so we can tell if our babies are ok, for example. If we could not tell if they were happy, we would have no way to know that they are of good health before they can talk. These instincts stay with us, but don’t mistake that for God, its just instinct.


I have explained how Good and Light are not measured the same.
I have shown our world is not perfect.
We have evolved n these conditions because the conditions grant it, nothing more.
You CAN have something from nothing, quantum physics explains this.
There are more than 2 possibilities for the creation of the universe.
Complexity does not prove God. If it did, God would need a God.
Feeling happy is not a proof of God.

Con has not shown any physical or reasonable “proof” of Gods existence and needs to answer the points made.



I will address every front mentioned and provide stronger logic as it seems you don't yet understand.
First do these things exist.
Directions of any kind like right or west

The answer is no not at all. None of these things exist and I'll tell you why.
Before us and after us as rationally thinking beings did any of these things hold meaning every last one of them as are you said measurements or in other words thought up of ways to explain what was otherwise unexplainable and do not truly exist but I digress.

Perfect world

I didn't mean in anyway the morals of the world nor do I remember bringing them up no. I mean the balance of it all the perfection in how well made things are and the beauty. Not to mention how it's all here whatever needs we have found to need it seems the earth always has something we can use to fill it and it does seem as if someone planed it all.

Something can't come from nothing

I rest this case for your quantum physics are still pure theory and can't even explain why if this is so then why doesn't it happen on a macro level.
Also let me remind you regular and proven physics show that energy can't be made destroyed and has no beginning nor end and is ethereal and eternal and it is the basis of all existence and holds power beyond any and all other things. So there by this sounds like God and therefor is God on a scientific stand point and is as well explaining that there is no before or after and no need of his creation.
But with all other existence having both beginning and end then something must cause even if it does come from nothing, something must cause it. So what is the one thing that was before and after to be around to cause. Energy! Or in other words God! So there for by useing the power of physics God is a perfectly provable entity.


A complex world needs a creator and so needs God.
But God didn't need a creator.
For the fact is energy is complex, as a matter of fact looking through e=mc2 (which is another equation that proves God.) the equation will show as you progress through it that it is beyond basic rational comprehension and is there for highly complex on an entirely new level.

Smile and Feelings.

Yes all in which you said here is true but not exactly what I meant.
You see you get around one of these people and the smile is infectious but there is a slight other feeling and that is what I was attempting to hint at and is the unexplainable aspect. As instated before that unexplainable additional thing you feel in the back of your mind is him.

I conclude saying all my proof has been perfectly reasonable it's just you have looked for ways to rebuttal it all and thus I can come straight back with greater logic without needing to ver off. Also as far as physical proof, well that falls into what I earlier declared as what is that fine line of valid proof. I mean physics and Murphy s law and etc. can't be seen or anything yet we feel that it's true we know it's true.
Just like physics itself God doesn't need picture evidence.

Side note

If you even do prove quantum physics as true remember as said it is still in a theoretical state and even so I have proven with physics that God is energy and energy was all there was to create all the rest of existence. Just thought I'd say that before you try and use it as reasoning that God doesn't exist.
Debate Round No. 3


I thank Con for the third round and will answer his points to how why there has still not been proof of God.

Good And Evil

Like before, I still stand that evil is not simply the absence of good. Left, Right, Directions and Math are all different things that are used to measure and study the world around us.

Like good and evil though, Math isn’t a linier count in one direction. That is, we can have positive numbers and negative numbers, starting from the point of 0. And the number 0 is in effect your neutral. In direction, you have left and right, and the neutral in the middle. Even on maps, you have east and west, north and south, but these are measured from the middle or neutral point. If I say a town is west of here, it is west from the neutral point at where I am standing, and things can also be east of here.

This is why these things are different from the dark / light and hot / cold examples that you put forward. If this was not true, then we would need to consider the following. My example of tapping my pinky finger on my keyboard for no reason, with no implication to anything else does absolutely no good. By your own proposed argument, as this does no good, it would have to be viewed as an evil act. Unless you can justify why this act of tapping my finger is evil, my point stands that it would simply be neutral. As evil and good do not have an end point you surely can’t have a starting point, just an asymptote to pass through in the form of a neutral point.

To take this back to its original point, If god exists, he would have created evil, not just the lack of good. If god created evil, he intended to create evil. A perfectly good god would not create evil, and therefore a perfectly good god does not exist. Any other type of god would not be perfect, and therefore not a god, therefore god does not exist.

I will point out aswell, you could say these things are all measurements made by man, however God would have this same ability to measure these things in the same way, therefore they exist for god as they do for man, making the point of existence of these things irrelevant.

Perfect World

The earth has what we need because we have evolved to survive and live with the things around us. If we evolved to need something not found on this earth, we wouldn’t survive. Therefore by basic evolutionary principle, it is no surprise that we find everything we need around us. That standing, we do not live in a perfect world when some people are born into it without those basic things. Some people are born into the world without food, water or anyway to live.

Something From Nothing

Your initial point was “nothing can only produce nothing.” This is proven to be wrong in quantum physics and therefore your youtube link of “proof” for god, is flawed from the very first words.

Just because they have not explained the macro version for you does not change what they have provenl. To say “this sounds like God and therefore is God on a scientific stand point” is actually a shocking thing to hear. You can never assume God just because it fits in nicely, you need proof. I could assume that everything popped out of thin air because a tiny yellow monkey called Simon didn’t eat his banana that day, doesn’t make it true or science. These things need backed up by proven science in order to make claims that they are true.

From the other perspective, to say that only God could create something from nothing defeats the proposed argument by Con that nothing can only create nothing. Also, to make such statements Con would have to have a ‘nothing’ to measure from.

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 thenassume
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!

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.


Your logic is flawed and defeats itself on this for the following reason.
You say complex things need a creator, but you do not apply this logic to god. If there is an exception to the rule then it is not an absolute, if it is not an absolute it does not ALWAYS need a creator and therefore that point alone cannot be justified as a proof of God.

Either complex things always need a creator, or they do not always need a creator.

Smiles and Feelings

I have never experienced this ‘other feeling’, and therefore have been shown no proof of it to be true or god. Above and beyond that, feelings are personal and cannot be a proof. I can’t prove to you that I feel happy or sad, and cannot show you this feeling, only describe it. If you want to use this as a proof, you need to prove both that these feelings exist, that there isn’t a perfectly suitable normal physiological reason for them, and above that, that this feeling is directly attributable to God. Otherwise your basing an argument for the creation of the universe on what could just be a hungry tummy.

Con states “I have proven with physics that God is energy “. although I cannot see where. If anything, we are closer to the point where God could not exist.



damienvox forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Con has FF'd the 4th round, and as such has not given any responce on the stated points I made in my previous round. As this is my last round it means I can't respond to any replies on the points brought up, So all I will say is I hope Con enjoyed this debate and that people vote reasonably :)


Allow me to once more say that what is valid proof. For you never answered. Also let me say I hope the voters take round 4 in contempt we all lead busy life's from time to time do we not.

Now let me say I have provided very valid proof and reasoning. Also let me say my claims towards nothing and quantum physics stand I did make scenarios with them in mind as to show whether these things are factual or not that God is still a provable entity.
Also allow me to elaborate on my energy is God.
You see all things start as theoretical things and I shall explain this process. With more far-fetched things well an entire process is behind them. You see first they become theory such as atoms or the world being round or God. Second something must provide a way to find them or something similar, such as microscopes, navigation and the compass, and physics. Now it must be proven which can be done in different ways. Some are just found while others it takes comparison and reasoning you must process the matter does what you found fit the description and does the factual thing you found act like the theoretical thing. Well if yes then you have found it in a factual state.

Such is God and energy all things need energy is energy by energy. Also energy isn't with beginning or end and can't be created or destroyed. So they fit into one another and thus the process has reached another cycle. God is energy is proven through physics and through basic reasoning.
Debate Round No. 5
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by truthoverbelief 4 years ago
The proof is in the pudding, or should I say in the Bible.

If you asked the Bible, who is "The Father" and in code form the answer was "God", would that seem to be just a coincidence?

If you asked the Bible, who is "The Lord" and in code form the answer was "Christ", would that seem to be just a coincidence?

If you asked the Bible, who is "The Father", "The Son", and "The Holy Spirit", and in code form the answer was "Christ" and "God", would that seem to be just a coincidence?

Go to and click on the flashing words "Watch / Listen". This takes you on a web page tour of such proof of God's existence, and does so via automatic web page scrolling along with complete audio coverage.
Posted by David.McIntosh 5 years ago
Just wanted to make a quick comment regarding Cons last round.

A theory is not what comes first. A theory is the highest thing an idea or hypothesis can ascend to in science, and has to be backed up by fact and peer reviewed before it gets anywhere close to becoming a theory.

to say, you start with a theory, and see if the facts fit is to LOOK for facts to fit that idea, and thats not how it should work. Let the facts lead you TO the conclusion. To say "i think god did it" then look for ways to back that up is the wrong way to go about things entirely.

To conclude, still absolutely no "proof" of god. you'v essentially only said "there is energy, i think that energy is god."
Posted by David.McIntosh 5 years ago
gageluc9, I think you have stereotyped atheists, or at least not understood what they/we are.

"atheists, they believe.. they believe everything on Earth came from one cell? Where did the cell come from? What proof do they have about all this stuff they say about the universe?"

There is no rule that say atheists believe this, at all. All atheism is, is the rejection of theist claims. That's it. They could believe that people evolved from lamp posts that evolved from a purple watch. Or, they could believe that we just suddenly appeared, no evolution, no god, it just happened. Atheism isn't a set rules about what they believe.

However, from a personal standpoint, I would like to mention a few things that you stated. Atheists do not claim that only earth has life. If we did we wouldn't be exploring space looking for life... and sci-fy movies would really take a hit on the sales. Plenty of people, scientists included openly state that we simply do not know if there is life anywhere else. There is also plenty science surrounding what happens when we die (essentially we rot and decompose.), what we think caused the dinosaurs to die, etc. etc. And all this is very very easily accessed.

I think the biggest issue with this comment though is that you are saying "atheists don't know, but religion does". All your doing is filling up those gaps with religion everytime you don't know from science, instead of investigating and finding out.

More worrying though is "prove the bible is wrong" is a complete switch of the burden of proof. If we took everything as true until proven false many people would be wrongly convicted, everything would be falsely advertised and we would have thousands of "true" religions all claiming factual truth without needing to back it up.
Posted by damienvox 5 years ago
Thank you gageluc9.
Posted by damienvox 5 years ago
Sorry I just now got on I have accidentally missed round four I will make my final rebuttals as well as my closeing statement in round 5 sorry for the inconvenience.
Posted by gageluc9 5 years ago
some invisible guy floating in the sky (near airplanes?) and letting all bad things happen to a bunch of idiots that believe in him. But for atheists, they believe.. they believe everything on Earth came from one cell? Where did the cell come from? What proof do they have about all this stuff they say about the universe?

We laugh at stories in the bible yet books in school are teaching things atheists have no proof of either.. why does only Earth have life? Why were the dinosaurs killed? What happens when we die? I mean if we're going to laugh at one side I think it's only fair to see what the other surely has to offer as proof for not only their reason but proof of it existing.

So prove to me why the bible is wrong, why atheists are right and how I can test it. i want to test right now why God isn't real but I evolved from a fish and monkey a trillion years ago lol
Posted by damienvox 5 years ago
I am sorry but I didn't notice this mistake I accidentally put no a factual existence to my evil argument when I meant not a factual existence terribly sorry old chap.
The color of grass comparison is a pretty good one and if we did go there well it would be irrelevant.
Posted by David.McIntosh 5 years ago
Damienvox, If I was to put forward an argument for why grass is green, and you disprove that, all that's happened is you'v shown my proof of the grass being green is invalid, it doesn't prove anything about the colour of the grass.

As for the subject of God, I'm keeping it for the debate, but the same logic applies.
Posted by damienvox 5 years ago
David.mcintosh please provide futher commentary so i may imply my futger debating points i can tell mrdevil as example is awaiting on it advently and so am I.
Posted by damienvox 5 years ago
In my earlier comment it was supposed to be as i said not as i daid sorry i will be home later and more able to type correctly. Again thankyou for understanding.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by TUF 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: There was a forfeit in R4, and a general Drop of arguments in Round 5, easily giving the win to Pro.