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

You are invited to attempt to prove the existence of your god

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  
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: 11/9/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 770 times Debate No: 64846
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




I would like to invite my potential opponent to provide arguments in favour of the existence of their god. I am an atheist so I will provide rebuttal for any arguments presented in this debate. First round should be reserved for my potential opponents opening statement in favour of their theistic god. Last round should be reserved only for a closing statement and as such no new arguments should be presented. Other than this, I am happy to adjust to any argument my opponent wishes to present. I look forward to debating


I will accept your challenge under the premise that definitive proof of god is impossible to either prove or disprove, it is of course a debate which has existed since time began and so far there is no difinitive proof on either side as inevitably the proof of god and the proof that we are spiritual beings is often dependant on belief and belief is subjective dependant on the individual, it also depends on witnessing, theories are basically explainations based on numerous factors and no theories are absolute fact unless one was there to actually witness them, while the Big Bang theory is the accepted theory of universes existence, no one was there to witness it therefore it is a theory rather than absolute fact., unless we can witness a 'god' can we believe in it. I do not believe we will get to the bottom of this question on but we shall hopefully share in informative argument on each side.
I would prefer to steer away from scriptural debate of religious doctrine although it may be inevitable that scripture is taken into account, belief in religion and belief in god are separate and while I feel religion serves it's purpose I will not be arguing from the barrier of only one ideology.
So I will debate what I believe, which is that god created the universe and all that's been and is within it, we as humans are spiritual beings rather than material beings and if we get onto it that there is a life after death of some form.
I would like to discuss something which I have read about which I find intriguing which is that truth in itself depends upon the individual and is itself subjective, as in just because something is 'all in your mind' does not make it false, if it is true within your mind then it is indeed your truth , which may be an interesting factor in a god debate.
So back to you, I will follow your lead so to speak , on where and what you want to begin this debate on.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank my opponent for accepting the debate and look forward to having a lively discussion on the matters at hand. I commend the Pro for acknowledging from the beginning that the existence of a god can neither be absolutely proved or disproved. In response to this statement however, I take the stance that there are an overwhelming amount of sound rebuttals which can be offered up in the face of god claims and in the face of the subjective evidence offered as proof for these claims by many theists.

I would like to begin by asking my opponent to firstly define what they mean by 'God' and, given that Pro believes a God exists, to then define what they hold the idea of 'exists' to mean in context of this belief.

My opponent has stated that a scientific theory is not fact unless the demonstrable components of this theory have been witnessed. I do not wish to delve too deeply into the questionable use of the term 'theory' (the term is sometimes used too liberally, from a scientific perspective, as is the case with the likes of the big bang concept) but I will point out that my opponents understanding of the term 'theory' is misguided. The Pro's ultimate point here is that a theory is not fact and while the big bang theory is the most current widely accepted idea for explaining the origins of the universe, the theory of evolution is held to be complete fact. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. I state this fact merely to illustrate that although no person was there to witness the beginning of evolution, it does not make the theory any less credible. Therefore, it is entirely logical and reasonable to say that something can be held to be factual, in this context, even with a lack of witnesses for the initial event. All that is necessary to achieve this is evidence.

On the point of evidence, although I admire my opponent for admitting that the existence of a cosmic creator cannot be proved definitely, I wish to point out that not one single piece of tangible, non-subjective evidence has been provided in support of a god claim.

I am happy to delve into scriptural debate should the situation call for it. For now I will continue on course and refrain from referencing scripture at this point. I would however like to know what purpose the Pro feels religion serves.

My opponent has stated their believe in a god and that this god created the universe. I would invite Pro to define what they mean by 'universe' as this is prudent in such a debate. I would also seek a definition for 'spiritual beings' and an explanation for the statement "we are spiritual beings rather than material beings". I feel it acceptable to assume, given my opponents statement, that they believe in an afterlife - this should also be a reasonable assumption given their theistic beliefs. I would therefore like to know if my opponent holds their belief in an afterlife to be a supporting factor for the existence of their god. If so, an explanation for this would be appreciated and, once again given the nature of this debate, I would request that tangible evidence be provided to support the idea of there being an afterlife.

My opponent has made an interesting point - "[...] just because something is in your mind does not make it false". I can only surmise that this held view will be used to justify the believe in a deity despite the complete lack of tangible evidence to prove its existence. I would welcome the expansion of this point and will therefore only add, as a means of provoking thought, that "your truth" does not make the belief any more factual. In order for something to be real, it must be measurable. Completely disproving god is impossible but this does not create a fifty-fifty situation - evidence, reasoning and the application of logic all lead to the existence of an all-powerful creator being very improbable indeed.

I welcome my opponents rebuttal and look forward to reading the additional points Pro has to offer.


I will start by defining my belief of the existence of God firstly as a creator of the universe, and as you may take the stance there are numerous rebuttals to the god theory in this context, I will take the stance there are infact numerous rebuttals to science's theories on the non existance of a God. I would generally consider myself as a believer in the big bang theory as I believe it coincides with the belief in a god and will attempt to provide tangible, evidence for such claims. I will define my idea of the universe as I would imagine the same as yours, all matter, energy, galaxies, and intergalactic space as a whole.
As far as your ideas on scientific theory go the laws of nature, evolution, universe ect in your thinking have been scientifically tested making them for you fact, God has not making him non existent. You are claiming that such laws which are immaterial, invisible, eternal, immutable, infallible, omnipresent, all powerful, unquestionable and transcendent are scientifically tested? However God has not. The laws themselves are not tested, regularities have. Such laws are invisible and immaterial. It is only effect which can be studied. Scientists have postulated the existence of laws to explain and describe regularities/effects. This in itself is assuming the existence of something remarkably similar to a god, which fills the same role of governing/sustaining the universe. Therefore if it is rational to believe in those laws it should be equally rational to believe in a god.
Next on the subject of theory/fact if any theory was actually fact, this would make the purpose of science itself a contradiction, science is based on the ideology of debate, testing, new ideas and evolution of old ideas, so if all was fact there would no longer be a purpose for science.
Why I think it is feasible that God created the universe.
* If there was not a creator the universe and all within it are totally random and without any purpose
* Assuming the big bang theory is correct, something must have existed prior to that big bang in order for it to have occurred, so if not a creator then matter itself must have existed.
* if matter has indeed always existed, energy must have always existed but without an external force everything must itself run out of or indeed have come to be by way of that energy. It is not proven nor feasible that matter can create itself from nothing, nor that energy can create itself from nothing.
* IT is impossible for movement to occur without being first affected by something else, the belief that movement can occur unaided is contradictory to a random/no purpose theory and concludes that a planned intervention caused that movement ie a creator.
* Natural law, design and order in the universe conclude in a law maker, designer or order maker to exist.
* Laws of logic point to rationality, they also show 'materialsm' is false because non physical causes exist.
* scientific theory claims there to be more anti matter than matter, but if it is not 50/50 between the 2 this violates scientific law of balance
* In an evolution without the idea created purpose and reason and rather randomness, how can life have begun to exist. Law of biogenesis proves life can only rationally come from life. A non god theory would have you believe that protein like substances formed from nothing, learned what was need to become/remain alive and reproduce, can random chance really be a more logical cause for this than a theory that the substances were created with purpose.
* Science still continues to try and explain the big bang which avoids the explanation for an absolute beginning.

I will continue on to what I mean by a material/spiritual brain on my next post as I do not have enough space left.
This is so far my 'proofs' that a God may actually exist and that it was this god who created the universe.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent has erroneously stated that they have numerous rebuttals for 'sciences theories on the non existence of a God'. This implies that the purpose of science is to disprove such things. The opposite of religion however is not science and science does not strive to disprove the existence of any deity. Science is the systematic study of the natural and physical world, therefore any 'deity' shrinks as science advances. This is merely a bi-product of scientific pursuit.

I would like to ask my opponent if, in light of the fact that the big bang is simply the most prevalent idea for how the universe came into being, it transpired that the big bang did not occur, would this then cause them to no longer believe in god, seeing as they believe this cosmic event gives weight to the existence of god.

Once again, my opponent has faltered in her reasoning and has taken the liberty and courtesy of trying to explain my own understanding to me. Is it not that evolution is fact and that I, in turn, accept it to be so, based on demonstrable and measurable evidence which makes me reject theistic claims. Once again, if evolution theory were to crumble it would not make the existence of a god any more likely. I reject theistic claims based on reasoning, logic and a complete, total and utter lack of tangible evidence to give 'god' credit. I invite Pro to read this definition:

Natural Law - "an observable law relating to natural phenomena".

Can the Pro provide a law of nature which has not been observed?

My opponent takes a massive leap here, offering a horribly flawed argument, by stating that it is just as rational to believe in natural law as it is to believe in an all powerful cosmic creator - whom, by theistic belief, is himself supernatural. This is intellectual dishonesty at its finest. If it were this simple, every person, scientists included, with an understanding of natural law, would embrace god as their creator. This reasoning is regretfully absurd.

Pro then goes on to state a very misplaced belief that "[...]if any theory were fact this would make science itself a contradiction [...]". Respectfully, it is alarming that my opponent can have such an ignorant view of science. My opponents argument can be honestly summed up as follows - if just one theory is fact, science would have no purpose. Again, whether my opponent accepts it or not, evolution is fact. No theist nor atheist can disprove evolution as fact. Thankfully Pro's reasoning is not solid here or science would indeed have no further purpose.

Pro then goes on to make several statements. It is evident Pro cannot see a purpose for the universe and life without the existence of a god. Pro's reasoning is subjective and narrow minded. My opponent goes on to rely on Thomas Aquinas' arguments for gods existence - the 'unmoved mover' and the 'uncaused cause' - both rely on an infinite regress - what caused the big bang - and invoke a god to terminate this regress. I simply request that Pro provide tangible evidence that god actually exists and would ask Pro to explain why god is immune to the infinite regress their arguments rely on.

"Natural law, design and order in the universe conclude in a law maker, designer or order maker to exist". - this is purely subjective and I am disappointed this argument has also been used. This is the argument from design and is an ignorant one - things look designed therefore they must be... My opponent cannot fathom how the universe could progress in the way it has, unguided, therefore a god must have guided this progression.

Perhaps my opponent does not realize that subjective reasoning does not amount to proof when it comes to a god claim..

I am running out of space so I will regretfully have to finish. Abiogenesis shows that life can come from non-living matter. So far my opponent has provided purely subjective reasoning to support the existence of their god. I will attempt to cover the outstanding points in my next rebuttal


It may not be science's purpose to disprove a God theory, but it would appear to be atheism's and since atheism is based purely on scientific proof the two will become intertwined especially within the context of this debate question.
Religion makes no contradictions upon this point though, religion is not about proving that its God/God's exist, they are based upon the 'faith' of that God's existence. Both science and Atheism though seem to be in a state of denial though, as they both seem to refuse to acknowledge that they are too based upon 'faith'. There is currently no scientific or atheistic theory which can disprove a God theory because as of yet they have still not created a theory which can definitively state how the universe 'began'. Ideas that things can start without a beginning have no proof and are not rational, the big bang theory (initially thought up by a priest) seems to be the most rational theory of 'how' things happened, but I nor anybody can hold up any idea as fact if we as a species were not even in existence when it occurred.
As I have stated all scientific law is not infallible it is subjective to contradiction and the fact that invisible laws cannot be tested, only the effects and regularities can be studied. You assume evolution to be true as I am assume God to be existent. As I have also said upon accepting this debate proof in the context of a God is irrelevant and cant exist, can you prove to me that you love your mother, it is unprovable through scientific law but that does not make it less of a truth.
Atheistic theory is inevitably based upon the fact that everything since and between the universes 'beginnings' as being without any intervention, without any purpose and being all random. I subjectively cannot believe in such claims. Which will bring me on to Material vs spiritual in terms of us as human beings.
Material mind would be a mind based on scientific theory, a mind that has evolved and exists without divine intervention, we are functioning beings who live and die. If materialism is true, then your mind is nothing more than an emergent property of your brain, or it is one and the same thing as your brain. If materialism is true, then irreducibly non-physical minds/selves cannot exist. If materialism is true, and all that exists is matter and energy, then all knowledge should be reducible to knowledge of physical/scientific facts. For instance, all knowledge about the experience of pain should be reducible to facts about the stimulation of peripheral nerve fibers, the signals they send to the brain, etc. If we knew all those relevant facts, then, according to materialism, we should know everything there is to know about the experience of pain. A material consciousness is where we experience life through our five physical senses. We judge and evaluate in accordance to what we can see, smell, hear, taste and touch.
Spiritual mind would entail that we are much more, we have a consciousness which has not merely evolved but rather has been created by a creator and it has a purpose, such emotions as love, jealousy, pride, the adoration of beauty ect cannot be defined as just material and are rather totally subjective and totally individual. A spiritual consciousness is experiencing life through spiritual discernment, insight and revelation. We see past the physical form to the spiritual essence and Source which created the form, and of which the form is made. Our human minds are what truly make us unique and unlike any other species on this planet. The fact that we have the ability to question is solely a human characteristic. Like atheists, the issue of people believing in God seems to bother them greatly. What is it about atheists that they would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don't believe even exists? What causes you to do that? If we were all as science claims, such emotions are contradictory, they go towards proving that we are not random
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent seems unclear of their own view on the purpose of science. Pro has again faltered in their understanding - atheism is a rejection of theistic claims and while science certainly helps when it comes to refuting, for example, creationist claims of a young earth, logic and reasoning are major players given that no person can absolutely prove a god does or does not exist.

Frustratingly, Pro is erroneously stating that science is based on faith " this could not be further from the truth. Again Pro has faltered in their reasoning " my opponent is implying that as nobody was there to witness the big bang, it is irrational to believe it happened. Pro has unwittingly unravelled their own stance - "ideas that things can start without a beginning have no proof and are not rational" - by this logic, Pro's own belief in a god is irrational.. Pro's rationale can be likened to holding the view that because one was not there to witness the birth of their parents, it would be irrational to believe ones own parents exist/existed. Thankfully there is evidence that I have parents, just like there is evidence for the big bang, regardless of whether one was there to witness the catalyst that caused these things to be.

Pro has again misunderstood the science they try to speak with authority on. I would simply ask - if scientific laws cannot be tested, how would they come to be law in the first place? The concept of love is a man-made one, what I hold to be 'love' may differ drastically from what another does. Pro may have a different interpretation of evolution but this does not diminish the facts in the slightest degree. Pro mentions a concept that is alien to me - 'atheistic theory' - as I have stated before; atheism is simply the rejection of theistic claims. I would kindly ask Pro to direct me to these claims and explain the term 'atheistic theory'. So far I have been presented with no tangible evidence to support the existence of a god. I am presented only with subjective 'proof' and faulty reasoning.

Pro's next approach, regarding the material mind, amounts to nothing more than word salad. An entire paragraph has been devoted to this yet once again I am presented with no proof to support a god claim. As a rebuttal and a means of provoking though within Pro, I would ask, given that Pro's line of reasoning is horribly narrow-minded, how does Pro know there is a brain within their skull given that Pro has not 'saw, smelt, heard, tasted or touched' it?

Pro then goes on to talk about the spiritual mind. The rhetoric is truly a pleasure to read however we are still no closer to receiving tangible evidence for the existence of a deity. I am provided with yet more subjective rebuttals. Now perhaps the most stunning line of all is my opponents closing statement - "[...] they go towards proving that we are not random at all." I shall dedicate an entire paragraph to my rebuttal.

The crux of my opponents argument, derived from the idea of a material mind versus a spiritual mind, can be summed up in the above line I have quoted regarding the idea of 'randomness'. It can be said that our human minds, our brains, are a product of evolution. Scientific pursuit tells us we as a species are here through evolution. Now Pro states "we are not random". Pro clearly does not realize that natural selection is not random and has therefore inadvertently complimented the theory of evolution, and more importantly my stance, in their own argument. I will sum up my point as follows -

1. Evolution is fact
2. We, as a species, are here through evolution
3. Science is an advocate of evolution theory
4. Pro erroneously believes science holds the view that we are here through random chance
5. Pro ironically uses their misunderstanding of this in an attempt to fortify their god claim
6. Natural selection is NOT random
7. This is a scientific claim and fact no less
7. Pro has inadvertently fortified my stance and horrifically tainted their own argument


cb123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


As agreed, because this is the last round, no new arguments are to be brought to the table.

Much to my disappointment my opponent forfeited the last round and therefore their opportunity to provide a final argument. As previously pointed out, Pro has made the fatal mistake of tarnishing their own argument while inadvertently fortifying my stance.

It is prudent to mention that my opponent, as I have highlighted throughout this enjoyable debate, has consistently displayed a complete misunderstanding of solid scientific theory and components thereof - namely evolution and natural selection - and has attempted to argue from this tainted perspective.

We have seen the flawed rational that science is based on faith. We have witnessed the twisted logic that would have Pro believe no scientific theory is fact. We also see that my opponent would have you believe that should just one scientific theory - again evolution - be proven to be fact, that it would make science completely redundant. It is these misunderstandings that drive my opponents stance and ultimately shape their arguments.

You will see the use of impressive rhetoric throughout my opponents arguments but this amounts to nothing more than subjective reasoning in the guise of word salad. This is something I have already highlighted.

The premise of this debate was straightforward - compelling evidence was to be provided to support the existence of an all powerful, cosmic creator and as this debate comes to a natural end, I am still, as I have already pointed out, no closer to being provided with tangible evidence. Every piece of 'evidence' was manifested from subjective reasoning or a flawed grasp on scientific fact.

My opponent, and I say this with the utmost sincerity, has played their part with decorum, never attempting to tarnish my character however this does not detract from the fact that decorum does not win a debate. It is the content, it is the logic and rational brought to the table and it is ultimately the strength of these things which win a debate. My opponents stance was never built on solid foundations and as this debate proceeded, Pro inadvertently tore down the pillars of their own argument.

In this debate, the burden of proof lies with the person making the god claim. This burden of proof has not been satisfied. Indeed, it is no closer to being satisfied than it was when this debate began. My argument and stance has been fortified with each passing round whereas my opponents has degraded consistently. I asked for tangible evidence for the existence of a god, my debate was accepted, yet I have been provided with none. My opponent has therefore fallen short.

I would invite any potential voter to cast their vote with fairness and honesty.


cb123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Dhananjay_srivastava 2 years ago
i stand for the contender
now suppose a ball kept on a wedge midway on a high mountain
a slight push will obviously make it roll down the mountain
scientifically it is defined that there exists high potential energy upwards and low potential energy downwards so the ball rolls down the slope now how come that happened please dont say common sense as i am talking in terms of absolute logic how does the ball know of what to do??
Quantum physicists define this as the characteristic property of the body.
i propose a step further let this property be defined a physical entity awareness or consciousness.
the soul which religion has always been screaming about happens to be this conciousness. god is said to
be omnipotent now every substance is said to have such characteristic consciousness. if we define god as the connection between all these so called souls the phenomenon of omnipotence and the characteristic of father figure is easily explained. the big bang had taken place "the world emerged from a small dot of light" the rig veda written 5000 years ago the veda was also read by einstien ,newton, etc where do you think they got this idea of a big bang from. answer me for all your logic why does the heissenberg uncertainity principle exist. many quantum physicists speak that before the big bang was thought what do you think that thought is.again this soul thing. the soul to soul communication is possible see hundredth monkey effect on wiki. i hope you like my logical take on the concept of god. this definition was probably lost because many people perhaps out of fear could not take the leap of faith. so there it stands the logicians take on the concept of god. thank you for reading
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
Even Jesus could not prove he was sent by God.Miracles could not get past the sin of unbelief. It is that way today. Jesus said. " if you will not believe Moses ( the word of God ) neither will you believe even if one rose from the dead.
Posted by Tweka 2 years ago
I have replied that on the debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 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: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Obvious conduct point to Con, due to Pro forfeiting. Arguments also go to Con due to the fact that Pro brought up reasons why God can exist, not proof or reasonable evidence that shows he does or even can. Con disputed this with ease. Pro also seemed to go off topic, and although brought up a "good" point about not being able to prove that you love your mother, holds no merit to proving the existence of a God. Love is a feeling. We know it exists. God is... an idea. The idea exists, the actual thing has not been proven to exist, or does not have reasonable evidence to show the existence is likely.