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

god is real and can be proven empirically

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 6/16/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 567 times Debate No: 76622
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




I am posing the argument that god cannot be proven using empirical methods of science / reason, we are always left with a argument that dwindles down to faith. I pose this argument to any theist to prove god real using something other than faith. Also, please understand that just because we don't know something, does not mean that logically god get's inserted into the mixture.



I am god according to what I believe, I can only assume that you meant god according to the opponent's belief and I believe that I am god. Empirically means according to observation and not solely on logic or faith. In this debate I will show why I exist empirically, firstly, let me note that I am a human, this claim is supported by the observation that I am on this website, as it is unlikely that someone that is not a human is posting a specific argument to a specific person. This claim will be confirmed when I reply to the next round's post, showing that I understan what is going on and am most likely a human. I maintain that if I exist, and I am god, then god is empically real. Thank you, I look forward to next round!
Debate Round No. 1


I disagree, and you are wrong. While I admire that you have a bit of creativity and a bit of cunning, in all religions and beliefs god carries at least some supernatural abilities. Even in non Abrahamic faiths, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism as supernatural entity still remains. However, before you go on and say "Well i am my own religion and I make it up so I can be what I want". This is in a sense equivocation, as you have deliberately taken a statement, change around it's obvious intent to make it into a argument which I have to argue your misuse of the word "god".

Now that I have pointed out your obvious and logical issues, let me rip apart your argument piece by piece.

"I am god according to what I believe"

One, god = me, from that statement am I to assume that god has the same meaning as me and vis-versa, if that is the case you have added on another unnecessary definition that does nothing to enhance the debate but to confusion and muddy the discussion.
And two you fail to mention what you believe, do you say that you are omnipotent? Are you implying that you have a rebirth "nirvana" cycle where you are a god of sorts in a Buddhist way? (Which good luck proving empirically again).

And while using observation is one of the main criteria of the empirical method, please do not pretend that no logic plays into it, it is not based solely on logic, as it requires a way to prove to our senses that something is true/untrue.

Your comment that you are a human just conceded your loss by the way. Unless we are going to also now say that human = god = me. Which is just throwing more confusing terminology into an again creative, but very very poorly thought out argument.

Again, let me restate, you are using words as they are not normally used, you are going against your own claims in once sentence than in the next supporting you original viewpoint which itself is just an attempt at an argument, and while I will concede that you are a human, you are not a god, and you have no proven any god like qualities empirically. You may invent whatever random thoughts come to your head, but me and you both know that anything you say now is an attempt at defense and you have already lost this debate.

I look forward to your rebuttal!


Pro failed to define what god is, as such the interpritation is up to me and my understanding of what god is. The first round is always for rules and clarification, so you see, as you have failed to do that, it is no longer fair for you to control the definition.

Your argument is pretty close to ignorant, you cannot assert in the resolution that there is a god who exists, and he can be proven empirically, to then state that we must justify god as he is defined in christianity, toaism, judiasm, islam, or what have you, as this is contradictory to all of those religions. We are clearly arguing that there is an god, and this god can be proven empirically. I am the one true god and thus I will of course prove my existance empirically. For starters you have already conceeded that I am human, any human is able to be empirically proven and thus I exist. I am god and thus god exists. Further empirical proof shows that because I am responding to your argument uniquely, I am most likely a person. Please do not be confused my son, the argument would be

god=me=human not human=god=me, even though technically they mean the same thing it is misleading to do it the second way. In any case you clearly understand that by god=me and am not saying that the definion of god is the definition of me, besides I explicitly stated that I am god in the round before so this semantical thing doesn't work out.

I define god as me, this is because I am god, I am also a human as con conceedes and any human can be empirically proven to exist, thus god empirically exists.

Even though I dont have to be part of a mainstream religion to show that the god I speak of, me, exists that there are religions that exist which claim that the self is god such as satanism. I am god, and I am a human and thus I win this debate automatically. Thanks for your time and I look forward to next round.

Debate Round No. 2


I am sorry, but when speaking to people of even average intellect I would assume that certain definitions that are common place would not have to be so narrowly and specifically redefined as to prevent someone from seeing a word and giving it a new definition.

Full Definition of GOD (according the the merriam-webster dictionary)

capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
: a person or thing of supreme value
: a powerful ruler

Obviously you cannot prove the 1st, 2nd or 4th empirically, my guess is you will than choose some half attempted idea at saying that you have supreme value, and that because you yourself give it. However you have forgotten to prove yourself to have supreme value even as a human. What makes you so much more supreme than others? Or if you are claiming to be a god, has anyone else been able to support your claims to supremacy? Other than redefining words do you have any other way to prove this? No, the answer is simply no. I would of at least respected and appreciated a theist argument on morality, or science, and trying to make that somehow fit within parameters, but no, you took an argument. Changed it's core concept to fit your own, and when I won't accept your completely ridiculous definition you call me ignorant?

How about this, you are not a god because I say so? There, I have proven from my "beliefs" (which yours or mine cannot be proven) that you are not, now we have dumbed this possibly entertaining and interesting debate to a person with issues of false grandeur, psychosis, or just a very poor concept of words. Take your pick or concede that your original argument was foolish. It was an attempt to immediately confuse words and push this discussion to position where you can talk about yourself.
You even admit in your own argument that you chose to define it, and yet when I use a definition that is so common and widely known you accuse me of not making clear what is an obvious statement.

Also, do you mean atheistic satanism or theistic? If theistic than you are wrong, if atheistic, than well my friend you are still wrong. If you alone in your head define yourself as a god than I seriously hope that you may find therapy and help, because you are insane.


The fact is that con has left the definiton of god as undefined, in any debate, such a thing must absolutely be defined. Most people will state characteristics such as omipotence or transedence...ect, con litterally does nothing, the term god is arguably the most wide of all definitions to be honest. Because he didn't define it, I defined it, as is only fair. It is much to late to change the definition now lol, and you should never argue in the final rounds. I do not have to base my definition of god on some mainstream religion, that is to say that only mainstream religions are plausibly valid which is idiotic, even if my definition of god came from my own personal religion that is good enough. But, I would like to tell everyone that I actually am part of a religion who defines god this way, its known as LeVayan Stanism, here is what we believe: "In Satanism each individual is his or her own god—there is no room for any other god and that includes Satan, Lucifer, Cthulhu or whatever other name one might select or take from history or fiction." Thus just for your personal content, I actually am following a mainstream religion.

I am god! I am Human! All humans can be emprically human! God can be emprically proven!

That's it, thanks for the time you put into the debate it was actually fun lol, but next time define your terms man...
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The instigator (Con) left the word "God" undefined. This allowed Pro to set the definition how he wanted. By round two, it was too late for Con to change the definition, therefore arguments to Pro since he was able to satisfy his bop with the definition he established.