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

There is not enough proof to confirm the existence of 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: 6/4/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 337 times Debate No: 92316
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Well, Foodiesoul. You want to be my friend? First you must prove your worth by giving me a spirited debate! I couldn't help but notice that you're A) a christian, and B) have never been in any debates. May the odds be ever in your favor! (unless you refuse the challenge like a wet noodle, in which case I will defriend you.)


I accept your debate, H501. May the best one win.
Debate Round No. 1


Ok, first some rules. No "atheists have no morals" or "magic sky fairy" sniping. You may use evidence from the Bible, but that can't be your only evidence. Proof: solid evidence that cannot be denied reasonably nor overwritten by other ideas. If proof is found both for and against, one must be incorrect, so we tie. No forfeits. No taking back what you said. Be respectful.

Okay, so. My argument. There is neither sufficient evidence for, nor sufficient evidence against the idea of God. Therefore, it cannot be reasonable to say for certain that he exists. The Bible does not prove his existence, because all sources must be backed up and their are no other sources from this time. Neither does the "wonder of the human eye" and other "miracles". The eye is one of the most important parts of an animal, so evolution has shaped it to be nearly perfect at its job. In the wild, bad eyesight can mean death. In any case, imperfections in the human body disprove the idea of a creator who modeled us perfectly (Like, for example, the appendix, which serves no purpose and can get badly infected.)

I also have a question. Are you a Creationist? (Do you believe in evolution?)


Don't worry H501, I will not say that atheists have no morals or use any "magic sky fairy" sniping, whatever that means.

The Bible does confirm that God exists because it has the names of the people who wrote the Bible during the biblical era such as Matthew, Luke, and Job. The Bible does not contain any sources because it already mentions the name of the book and who is speaking in that book.
Like this passage says, several historians at the time wrote the Bible. These historians were as honest as possible and like the passage says, these historians who had nothing to benefit from being inaccurate and dishonest can be used to confirm that the Bible is indeed accurate and therefore confirms the existence of God. If these historians and other historians who wrote the Bible weren't very accurate when writing the Holy Bible, then it could be said that there is not enough proof to confirm God's existence.

In your argument for Round 2, you say, "In any case, imperfections in the human body disprove the idea of a creator who modeled us perfectly..." Yes, it's true that all humans have physical imperfections, whether big (such as lumps in the breast/genitals or rotten teeth) or small (such as little pimples) but this does not mean that a creator of life does not exist.

The reason why God does not model anyone perfectly is because without any physical imperfections, everyone would be close to looking the same, like in The Giver where everyone has the exact same look and conforms to the physical properties of sameness.

In my 7th grade language arts class, I was required to read The Giver for one of the units and the book perfectly shows that sameness can lead to huge problems. The reason for this is because with sameness, everyone is required to look a certain way and the people who do not look like that are either shamed by their family or as they say in The Giver, "family unit", or they are executed.

Without physical imperfections, the world would probably follow in The Giver's footsteps and adopt the rules of sameness. What makes humans and every other organism so great is that none of them look exactly the same and each organism has their own flaws, which allows them to differ greatly from another organism.

Everyone has their own definition of beautiful and sameness would lead to huge problems because there wouldn't be so much variety in physical appearance so people would be pressured to have romantic relationships with people they don't consider "beautiful" in their eyes. Obviously, this would lead to huge chaos because of the lack of choice and variety in beauty.

Also, it's not just humans who have physical imperfections. Many gods have physical imperfections too.

For example, Hephaestus (the Greek god of crafting and inventing) has a crippled foot and in some versions of his story, he sits in a wheelchair but his crippled foot did not stop him from crafting a variety of metals and other items.

The Egyptian sun god, Ra, only has one eye, which is the Egyptian goddess Sekhmet in some versions of his story. Since Sekhmet is a warrior goddess and the eye of Ra, she can be very violent.

I believe in evolution and creationism. I believe that all organisms are created by God but that they have physically gone through the process of natural selection to adapt new traits which allow them to survive in environments that they're not physically used to. For example, a human being who is not used to living in the desert would have to wear more short sleeve tops and shorts and wear less layers of clothing because of how hot deserts can be.
Debate Round No. 2


Thanks for sticking to the rules. And you are correct, many events in the Bible are historically accurate. For example, historical records prove that during Noah's time, there really was a large flood that may have covered up to 10% of the worlds land area (This doesn't sound like much, but the world is REALLY big.) But even if some parts of the Bible have basis in fact, it doesn't mean all of them are. Think about it. If you are writing a book about your idol in an effort to get others to follow him, would you tell the gospel truth? More likely, you would take actual events and twist them or use hyperboles (I hope this isn't offensive)

And human imperfections actually disprove Gods existence. No omnibenevolent creator would create humans with such glaring design flaws. These flaws don't just set us apart, they can hurt or kill us. If you wanted to make humans different, you could make them different in ways that wouldn't at best, hinder, and at worst, harm them. You could give some bigger lungs and more stamina, others longer legs and more speed, others more powerful neurons and more intelligence... etc. etc. etc.

And, by the way, your "Giver" analogy, while I have rebutted the argument it supports, is an excellent one. Yes I have read the book (Actually a long time ago, in 5th grade, I think.) It's an excellent novel, isn't it?

However, I fail to see your point when you say gods in mythology have imperfections. Surely, if you're a Christian, you don't believe in these gods, right?

Anyway, that about wraps it up. Thanks for clarifying your beliefs on evolution (I'm glad I'm not debating a creationist, because when that happens, theological debates can turn into arguments over evolution.)


I understand what you are saying and I am not offended by it! If I was to write an essay on a historical figure, I would probably use lots of facts and then twist those facts to make the essay seem longer and more in-depth! Many reality shows use this technique! They make the characters' lives seem more dramatic than they usually are and then they build on that drama to create a storyline that makes their show seem more interesting and appealing to viewers!

Can you please specify on how human imperfections can hurt or kill us?

The problem with what you said about attributing humans with different traits that give them their own advantage over others is that then, humans with certain traits would be pressured to marry others with those same traits! For example, a person with more neurons and intelligence would have to marry another person with lots of neurons and intelligence.

This would not allow humans to learn anything as they would only be using their own traits given to them, thus not allowing them to learn new skills! The reason why humans are so great is because if they're not good at a certain skill, they can practice and learn that new skill, which predictably gives them a higher chance of survival, since they have adopted a new skill, which they can use to maybe avoid danger!

For example, the popular game The Sims, allows the player to control many sims! These sims can learn new hobbies such as fishing, cooking, designing clothes, and more! For each hobby that a sim masters, the sim gets bigger and better rewards such as clothing and customizations!

I just used the gods as an example to argue against your side! I believe in only one god and that is the God, not mythological gods!

One huge piece of evidence that can be used to prove that God exists is the country Israel itself! Israel is a Jewish country that lies in the Middle East! There are some Jewish parts of Christianity such as the ancient language of Hebrew! Also, many events from the Bible took place in middle eastern countries such as Egypt and Syria!

Israel is known as the holy land because it's literally the living foundation of many religions! Christianity is one of those religions! Because of this, Israel is surrounded by religious temples and other holy buildings! Israel takes religion very seriously!

Not only that but Jerusalem, one of the most important places in the Bible, is one of Israel's major cities and it's considered a sacred area for Christians, Jews, and Muslims!
Debate Round No. 3


I believe I already gave an example- appendixes can get infected and hurt us (Before 1900, appendicitis could lead to death.) With modern medicine, this no longer happens, but there are other imperfections. I don't really have time to list them all (In any case, that's not what this debate is over), but if you're interested, go here-

I'm afraid I don't understand what the problem is with smart people marrying. This would result in a baby that had inherited its parents traits- and would also be very smart, in fact maybe even more so. It's true, people of like intelligence would be attracted, but I don't really think you can provide evidence to suggest they would feel pressured.

Well, that's about it for my rebuttal (I'm afraid I don't really understand your "Jerusalem" argument, I know that that's a real place, and it has nothing to do with God's existence. Thanks for the debate, I really enjoyed it.

Here are some sources:


I read the Top Ten Imperfections article.
1) Wrist- A human hand can not exist without a wrist.
2) Back- Without a back, humans would have nothing to support their skeleton.
4) Jaw- Without a jaw, humans would not be able to eat and food is necessary for survival.
9) Eyes- Without eyes, humans would not be able to see.

Just because two smart parents make a baby does not mean that the baby will automatically be smart. The baby inherits genes and traits from both parents. Also, you cannot be born smart because smartness is a personality trait, not a genetic trait.

There's not much else I can say since this is the last round. Thank you so much for allowing me to participate in this debate. I really enjoyed it and I found it to be a very interesting topic.

Here's a source:
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 months ago
>Reported vote: TheChristian// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Both used highly intelligent arguments, and both were very resourceful. However, Pro admitted to some evidence that Con didn't even present, poking a hole in his won argument. Both used common sense in arguing very well. However, BoP is very important in debates such as this. Pro could not provide proof that Con could not refute. Thus, while both sides were equally good, there is reasonable doubt cast by Con. So, I have to award arguments solely to Con.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The debate is over 1 month out from the end of the voting period, and is thus beyond the statute of limitations for moderation.
Posted by H501 4 months ago
Hey caty4444444, just because I crushed in our last debate doesn't mean you have to be like that. I'm not attacking any religion, I respect religion. I just want to have a spirited debate. So please, stop being a sore loser.
Posted by caty44444444 4 months ago
Look, H501, that's pretty mean, just cause someone's a different religion to you, doesn't mean you can treat them like dirt. Next time, choose a sensible debate topic, or don't debate at all
Posted by savvy_girl 4 months ago
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheChristian 4 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Both used highly intelligent arguments, and both were very resourceful. However, Pro admitted to some evidence that Con didn't even present, poking a hole in his won argument. Both used common sense in arguing very well. However, BoP is very important in debates such as this. Pro could not provide proof that Con could not refute. Thus, while both sides were equally good, there is reasonable doubt cast by Con. So, I have to award arguments solely to Con.