The Instigator
SexyCracker
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
JBpixie
Con (against)
Winning
40 Points

You cannot disprove 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 4/17/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,255 times Debate No: 3684
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (36)
Votes (18)

 

SexyCracker

Pro

Please, somebody completely convince me that there is absolutely no way there is a Creator of the world. You cannot disprove the existence of God, it's not possible.
JBpixie

Con

Certainly there is no way to disprove the existence of a god or other such entities. However there is also no way to disprove the existence of leprechauns, unicorns, Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny. Yet most people would agree that none of those things exist since the evidence shows that they are more likely than not, nonexistent. The same applies to gods there is no evidence to show that said entity exists therefore it makes more scientific sense to assume there is no god.

To show that there is no god is impossible and to show that there is a god is also impossible. Likewise to show that leprechauns aren't real is impossible and to show that they are real is also impossible.

It's essentially a paradox; If something isn't real you can't prove it's real and you can't prove that it's not real. What you can do is search for evidence of existence and where there is none one must conclude that what is being sought after is not real. However since the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence one should remain open to possible existence upon the provision of sufficient evidence, which is unlikely to happen.

The best way to disprove the existence of a god would be to understand when and how the notion of the existence of god came to be. For example Santa Clause isn't real and we all know that because we know how the myth came to be and practical knowledge shows that it is unlikely that such a person can exist.
Debate Round No. 1
SexyCracker

Pro

Well, the only thing I am confused about is why are you siding with my side of the argument, that you cannot disprove God, when you chose to be on the side that disagreed with my statement?

Do you know in debate it does not always matter whether you're right or wrong and factual logic is not always necessarily key, but may you rather (and what I was more so looking for in this debate, I don't think I quite elaborated on it enough though, so defiantly pardon me for that) but you chose to pick the side to prove to me that the existence of God is not real, whether you believe it or not, I suppose I was looking for a battle of the wits using self produced logic just to back up the actual statement that you chose to side with. But, I realize I wasn't very clear on that, so pardon me. =]
JBpixie

Con

I'm not taking your side of the argument. What I was doing is stating that there is no way for anyone to disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist. In order to prove something exist one requires evidence and when something doesn't exist there will be no evidence and hence one must conclude that it does not exist, but cannot prove that it doesn't exist since there will be a complete lack of evidence to substantiate either claim.
Do unicorns exist? No they do not. Can you prove they don't exist? No. How do you tell they're not real…well you look for them and when you've exhausted all means of locating them you must conclude that the don not exist. The same applies to the gods. They do not exist on Earth, they have no influence on the Earth or its inhabitants (something some may doubt), and there is no proof to show existence.

Since there is no way to disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist one must use conjecture. There simply is no evidence to show that there is a god and the complete lack of evidence is proof that there is no supreme creator. And although the lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean that there is no god it does prove that there is no god in the popular sense of a deity which is an active part of the world.
Debate Round No. 2
SexyCracker

Pro

You are, once again, missing what I am trying to say.

I'm not looking for an arguement where there is an absolute true answer, but rather two people regardless of belief, taking a side and using simple logic and twist to not necessarily prove a point in the end, but for the simple reason of the debate.

and technically yeah you are siding with me.
I'm pro that you cannot disprove, don't argue with me about whether or not you ACTUALLY can disprove (people try and disprove things on this site all the time and in the end it's still a matter of one's own thought) but take up your side of the arguement, and flow with it.
just. forfet. you're not getting me. sorry if I wasn't clear.
XD
JBpixie

Con

I understand what you're trying to say and I'm not siding with you I'm just stating that to definitively prove something doesn't exist is impossible and therefore not worth debating. However to using logic to prove that something doesn't exist is possible and is what I was trying to do...though I guess what I was saying wasn't very clear.
I was essentially showing that you can prove there is no god but at the same time stating that if you're looking for an absolute answer there is none to be had.
Debate Round No. 3
SexyCracker

Pro

SexyCracker forfeited this round.
JBpixie

Con

I see my opponent has neglected to post another arguement, and as such I haven't any cause to post anything...
Debate Round No. 4
SexyCracker

Pro

SexyCracker forfeited this round.
JBpixie

Con

Seeing thatmy opponent hasn't posted any arguement I wouldn't either, though I did intend to...irreguardless it's over...
Debate Round No. 5
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Agent_D, I think you just proved you were guilty of not reading what you were trying to rebut :D.
Posted by draxxt 9 years ago
draxxt
irreguardless is not a word... Get better.

Oh, and good job being punctual, CON.
Posted by Agent_D 9 years ago
Agent_D
Yes, Innocent until proven guilty.

I accused you, your a murderer. would you accept or deny it?
you have the right to defend your self. rise a question, prove all the question.

justice is for all.. for accuser/s and accuse.,

you made me laugh.
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
http://objection.mrdictionary.net...

Seems like y'all are having a full-fledged debate in the comments. Since we're here on debate.org, I figure it might make more sense to.... aw, forget it.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"See, you admit that were here for existence.
"

A cause is not the same thing as a reason, you're equivocating.

"in any court, you cannot judged a persons unless all questions had been settled."

So you can't judge whether Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11... until you know why breathing in 9/11 dust is bad?

You only have to settle the relevant questions, Agent_D.

Since you want a court, shall I say... "objection-relevance?"
Posted by Agent_D 9 years ago
Agent_D
See, you admit that were here for existence.

in any court, you cannot judged a persons unless all questions had been settled. So for as long as the questions arise, and not beyond reasonable doubt we cannot hold it as a truth.

You tangled in your argument.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Rock no reason to be here? Im standing on the top of the floor made from rock. We have balance eco system because of rock. we build bridges that connect one location to the other because of rock.
"
That's part of the cause of our existence. Not a part of the cause of the rock's. Rock's don't have minds, reason cannot exist without minds.

"
Evolution is a theory,it made up from question? do you mean that evolution is not a proof?
"

I mean that asking a question about evolution does not constitute proving it. The proof of evolution was inductive, based on observation of evolution actually occurring today.

"So as long as there is a question, it will never hold a truth.
"
Not if the question isn't about the truth. It is not relevant to the question of whether God exists whether you know exactly how elements derive, when you have already observed that the concept of god is self-contradictory.
Posted by Agent_D 9 years ago
Agent_D
No truth has been set unless it was beyond reasonable doubt. so as long as there is a question, it will never hold a truth.
Posted by Agent_D 9 years ago
Agent_D
Rock no reason to be here? Im standing on the top of the floor made from rock. We have balance eco system because of rock. we build bridges that connect one location to the other because of rock.

"A question is not any sort of proof"

Evolution is a theory,it made up from question? do you mean that evolution is not a proof?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
". Science define universe as a contingent element,"

One contingent element? That's not at all what science defines the universe as.

"Now the challenge would be like this where did all element originate? where did the primitive elements derive?"

A question is not any sort of proof. And things don't necessarily have to have an origin point.

"Im not sure about "No Reason" maxim. everything has a reason to be here"

Reason is a specifically human thing. Rocks do not reason. Rocks do not have reasons.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Conor 8 years ago
Conor
SexyCrackerJBpixieTied
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 Scyrone 9 years ago
Scyrone
SexyCrackerJBpixieTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Oddlogic 9 years ago
Oddlogic
SexyCrackerJBpixieTied
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 beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
SexyCrackerJBpixieTied
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 Issa 9 years ago
Issa
SexyCrackerJBpixieTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by The_Philosopher 9 years ago
The_Philosopher
SexyCrackerJBpixieTied
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 leeman15251 9 years ago
leeman15251
SexyCrackerJBpixieTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 9 years ago
brian_eggleston
SexyCrackerJBpixieTied
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 Oolon_Colluphid 9 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
SexyCrackerJBpixieTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
SexyCrackerJBpixieTied
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:03