The Instigator
vorxxox
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
mark94
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points

There is undeniable evidence that God doesn't exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,483 times Debate No: 7047
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (7)

 

vorxxox

Con

Well, in taking this debate you must prove that there is undeniable evidence that God as I define doesn't exist.

Definition of God - Being responsible for the existence of mankind

:)

I humbly await my opponents arguments.
mark94

Pro

i am writing to say that i have logical evidence that god doesn't exist

The Bible says God is almighty who answers your prayers. So how do you know if God is real other than that faith crap? Try the power of prayer when an earthly situation occurs which is beyond your control and only an almighty God who created the universe and all life can control.

Suppose you or a close family member has a terminal disease like cancer which cannot be medically cured? A certain time line is given, so like all hopeful human beings, you humbly and diligently pray to the almighty God who says in the Bible he answers prayers. Time and reality passes, the disease takes it's toll, and your prayers go unanswered.

Maybe one in a million may be saved, but looking at a 99.9999% failure rate for prayer is evidence that God does not exist. Now, compare it to an atheist who suffers the same terminal disease and wishes for healing. The same 99.9999% failure rate occurs.

Now compare it to a devout Muslim suffering the same terminal disease and prays to his/her god for healing, and still results in a 99.9999% failure rate. Similarly, the Hindu, Jew, Buddhist, etc... all face 99.9999% failure rates.

Doesn't this indicate you you that there is no God? Perhaps one of the numerous worshiped gods do exist, but wouldn't that omnipotent god produce better than a 99.9999% failure rate, or else what is the purpose of worshiping that god if he doesn't answer your prayers? Doesn't common logic and sense exist anymore?

looking forward to your response
Debate Round No. 1
vorxxox

Con

Thank you for accepting my debate. First to refute your arguments:

"The Bible says God is almighty who answers your prayers. So how do you know if God is real other than that faith crap? Try the power of prayer when an earthly situation occurs which is beyond your control and only an almighty God who created the universe and all life can control."

Who cares what the Bible says? I did not define God as god of any religion or holy book. And when did I ever say that God created the universe or that God had any control over anything?

I didn't

:)

I didn't define my God as a prayer answerer either. Just the being responsible for the existence of mankind.

The burden of proof is on you my friend. You have to prove that there is UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE that my God doesn't exist.

Now for my argument:

Since my definition of God was so vague, God can be ANYTHING that attributed to the existence of mankind. Therefore, the meteor that caused dinosaurs to go extinct and mammals to dominate the Earth and eventually become man would still fit the definition of God. Or the primordal soup which created the first life would fit the definition. Even the Earth could fit the definition because it is able to maintain life.

I have challenged my opponent to give not evidence, but UNDENIABLE evidence that my God didn't exist. Yet, how could you do such a thing on something that isn't studied and has no CAPACITY to be discredited. For example, do you have UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE that extraterrestrail life doesn't exist? How could you when we live in a largely unexplored cosmos? We haven't the information to make such a claim.

This is why I will win this debate. My opponent thought I was trying to argue some God other than the one I defined, and turns out I actually challenged my opponent to do the impossible: discredit something that has no capacity to be discredited. In just a sentence or two I crushed my opponent's entire case, and I have explained why what I was challenging my opponent to do was impossible.

Please vote CON

Thank you
mark94

Pro

thank you for your response

first of, science has found no physical evidence of god and any claims concerning god are unfalsifiable and subject to occam's razor, which is that in an argument the simplest one is the correct one

secondly, Nature shows features, which, if interpreted as intelligently designed, suggest sloppiness or perverseness. Therefore a perfect being did not design them

lastly, An omnipotent God could and would establish the unquestionable belief in Himself in the minds of mankind; the existence of non-belief suggests that God does not exist

please vote PRO

cheers
Debate Round No. 2
vorxxox

Con

Thank you. I'll refute your arguments before introducing mine.

"first of, science has found no physical evidence of god and any claims concerning god are unfalsifiable and subject to occam's razor, which is that in an argument the simplest one is the correct one"

If lack of evidence is evidence, then not collecting stamps is a hobby (kudos to RoyLatham). Therefore, if there's not any evidence that God exists, you can't claim there is evidence that God doesn't exist.

Second of all, who said something about intelligently designed nature? Did I say God designed nature? Did I even say God designed anything? And who said God was perfect? Or omnipotent?

"Definition of God - Being responsible for the existence of mankind"

That's all!

Did you not here my argument:
Since my definition of God was so vague, God can be ANYTHING that attributed to the existence of mankind. Therefore, the meteor that caused dinosaurs to go extinct and mammals to dominate the Earth and eventually become man would still fit the definition of God. Or the primordal soup which created the first life would fit the definition. Even the Earth could fit the definition because it is able to maintain life.

This is why I have won this debate. My opponent has put words in my mouth saying I made claims that I didn't, and quite frankly, couldn't give UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE about what I defined as God being incorrect, because I gave so little information, it had no room for any flaws.

:)

Please vote CON
mark94

Pro

mark94 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Whatever evidence Con offers, Pro can deny it, thereby proving that it is not undeniable. It's an exercise in nonsense. Pro shouldn't play games.
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
It's strange how the instigator starts a debate and then goes on to explain how the debate -which they created- is completely biased towards them and there is absolutely no way that the contender of the debate can possibly win.

Almost seems like this debate was started solely for the purpose of getting a higher win ratio, and having nothing to do with having a fair argument.
Posted by zach12 8 years ago
zach12
It is a little known fact that morflogenbar was the son of Ruminskatin and didn't like the male gender and so changed herself to a woman.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Once Morflogenbar smites Godsands for his impiety and faithlessness to the Most Revered Code of the Brethren of Morflogenbar, we shall erect a statue glorifying the justness, righteousness, and piety of the Most Holy Morflogenbar, Prostitute Mother of Snarfblatt, the Skrivvy of Thornglobber.

All hail Morflogenbar, may she reign for eternity.
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
Smiting MUST come first, or there is no sense of doom. Or gloom.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
We should erect a statue in the town square before the doom and smiting thing happens.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
All hail Morflogenbar, may she reign for eternity.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
One and the same - the skrivvy of Thornglobber.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Morflogenbar? You mean the prostitute mother of Snarfblatt?
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
Yer need to define god, vorxxox. Otherwise that statement is as sensical as 'There is undeniable evidence that Morflogenbar doesn't exist'.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Wise8231 6 years ago
Wise8231
vorxxoxmark94Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
vorxxoxmark94Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by zach12 8 years ago
zach12
vorxxoxmark94Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by baconator 8 years ago
baconator
vorxxoxmark94Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
vorxxoxmark94Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
vorxxoxmark94Tied
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 
Vote Placed by vorxxox 8 years ago
vorxxox
vorxxoxmark94Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70