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

Does God Exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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: 5/14/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,232 times Debate No: 54660
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)




Does God Exist? I will make an assumption at the start; my opponent will prove his/her god via the Kalam Cosmological argument and the teleological argument. In order for me to succeed at refuting the pro position I must accept their logical arguments as plausible. This does not mean I concede the debate, only that I am willing to accept the logical arguments that will be used as evidence for the existence of a god. While this does put me in a vulnerable position I am comfortable with this arrangement since it will allow us to move passed the taxiing portion of any God debate and (hopefully) move directly into the mashed potatoes and gravy.

While the rules of debate place a burden of proof on the pro position I am forced to create a new category of debate for this very topic. here is my reasoning.

To disprove the "existence" of something that has never been supported with "sufficient evidence" your only way forward is to disprove successfully all insufficient evidence accordingly. For example; A flying spaghetti monster can be imagined by self aware creatures, but that does not prove it exists in reality. If I were to be forced to disprove a flying spaghetti monster without first being presented with evidence supporting it, my only argument would then be that there is no evidence to support such a creature.

Since I would agree that there has been evidence put forth by many groups supporting a god or gods I cannot argue that there is no evidence. That leads me to the next position I must take, and that is; I must refute and disprove all evidence supporting an existence claim. This leads me to my new category of sorts. Existence claims should not be on the same level as a debate about what brand of toothpaste to use. Since we can all agree that the brands being argued for or against ought to exist if the debate would have any meaningful outcome, we should also agree that arguing for or against a brand of toothpaste that may not exist would be a waste of time, since we must first determine if the toothpaste has actually been manufactured. Existence claims are in the 'may not exist category'. If we are going to determine the possible existence of anything we must examine the evidence supporting it. "arguing existence", ought to be in a category of its own. Since I cannot assume my opponent will accept this term I am ready and willing to move on with the debate in what ever manner it evolves.

Another example would be if I were to deny the existence of dogs. I would then have to disprove all supporting evidence for dogs and if I could not do so then dogs must in some way exist. The same would be attributed to a god. Supporting evidence is different than a logical argument. While I admit that a logical argument should not be ignored if it is sound, the next step after a logical argument is supporting it. Proof is the way you support any claim.

My opponent may try to shift the entire BoP to me, if this happens we can conclude that my opponent does not wish to have a real discussion since I have already granted the plausibility of a two logical arguments for the existence of a god or gods.

One basis for the logical arguments supporting the existence of a god or gods says that "you can know god". If you notice the word 'can' implies that you may not know this god. This argument makes the act of knowing a god subjective and therefore concedes that the act of knowing a god is not universal. This is important since one of the main claims my opponent will most likely use is that knowledge of god or gods is in fact universal. One argument is that the knowledge of a god or gods is "written on your heart". While I accept that this is a metaphor I cannot simply accept this claim based upon an assertion. This claim must be supported in order for it to stick. If it is possible that I somehow know a god exists but I am somehow repressing that knowledge then there should be some psychological evidence to support this. while I have not been presented with any supporting evidence I am willing to entertain the Idea of repression. Repression is a very real human reaction to various circumstances, but we must be able to connect in some way all people that refute god claims with people that are repressing some, or all knowledge of the supernatural. While I agree that the act of repressing thoughts, feelings, or memories is a very real human condition to then assert that people repress knowledge of a deity must be followed up with some supporting evidence.

While I am not formally trained in rhetoric, philosophy, or other such debate oriented disciplines I am excited to take a shot at a structured debate. To my opponent I wish you good luck, and to anyone that reads this, thank you.


Just once wouldn't you love for someone to simply show you the evidence for God's existence? No arm-twisting. No statements of, "You just have to believe." Well, here is an attempt to candidly offer some of the reasons which suggest that God exists.

But first consider this. When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God.1 On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you."2 Before you look at the facts surrounding God's existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him? Here then, are some reasons to consider...

1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

Many examples showing God's design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:

The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

existence of GodThe Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4

Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:

It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.

proof of GodWater is a universal solvent. This property of water means that various chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.5

Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.

Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.

Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.

Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.6

The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.

existence of GodThe human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people.

The eye...can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages -- simultaneously.8 Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain -- the start of living organisms from nonliving matter.

2. Does God exist? The universe had a start - what caused it?

Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.

Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen."9

Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."10

The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.

3. Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?

Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the speed of light doesn't change -- on earth or in galaxies far from us.

How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?

"The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn't have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence."11

Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle."12

4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.

existence of GodAll instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this: 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human cell!!

Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full instruction manual.13

existence of GodWhy is this so amazing? One has to did this information program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals. These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way exactly how the person's body should develop.

Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it.

5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.

I was an atheist at one time. And like many atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don't believe even exists?! What causes us to do that? When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those poor, delusional help them realize their hope was completely ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go about my life.

proof of GodI didn't realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was as if I couldn't escape thinking about the possibility of God. In fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God's existence, my prayer began with, "Ok, you win..." It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them.

I am not the only one who has experienced this. Malcolm Muggeridge, socialist and philosophical author, wrote, "I had a notion that somehow, besides questing, I was being pursued." C.S. Lewis said he remembered, "...night after night, feeling whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all of England."

Lewis went on to write a book titled, "Surprised by Joy" as a result of knowing God. I too had no expectations other than rightfully admitting God's existence. Yet over the following several months, I became amazed by his love for me.

6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.

Why Jesus? Look throughout the major world religions and you'll find that Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Moses all identified themselves as teachers or prophets. None of them ever claimed to be equal to God. Surprisingly, Jesus did. That is what sets Jesus apart from all the others. He said God exists and you're looking at him. Though he talked about his Father in heaven, it was not from the position of separation, but of very close union, unique to all humankind. Jesus said that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father, anyone who believed in him, believed in the Father.

He said, "I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."14 He claimed attributes belonging only to God: to be able to forgive people of their sin, free them from habits of sin, give people a more abundant life and give them eternal life in heaven. Unlike other teachers who focused people on their words, Jesus pointed people to himself. He did not say, "follow my words and you will find truth." He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me."15

What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine? He did what people can't do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people...blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had power over objects...created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over nature...walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop for some friends. People everywhere followed Jesus, because he constantly met their needs, doing the miraculous. He said if you do not want to believe what I'm telling you, you should at least believe in me based on the miracles you're seeing.16

Jesus Christ showed God to be gentle, loving, aware of our self-centeredness and shortcomings, yet deeply wanting a relationship with us. Jesus revealed that although God views us as sinners, worthy of his punishment, his love for us ruled and God came up with a different plan. God himself took on the form of man and accepted the punishment for our sin on our behalf. Sounds ludicrous? Perhaps, but many loving fathers would gladly trade places with their child in a cancer ward if they could. The Bible says that the reason we would love God is because he first loved us.

Jesus died in our place so we could be forgiven. Of all the religions known to humanity, only through Jesus will you see God reaching toward humanity, providing a way for us to have a relationship with him. Jesus proves a divine heart of love, meeting our needs, drawing us to himself. Because of Jesus' death and resurrection, he offers us a new life today. We can be forgiven, fully accepted by God and genuinely loved by God. He says, "I have loved you with an everlasting love, therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you."17 This is God, in action.

Does God exist? If you want to know, investigate Jesus Christ. We're told that "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."18

God does not force us to believe in him, though he could. Instead, he has provided sufficient proof of his existence for us to willingly respond to him. The earth's perfect distance from the sun, the unique chemical properties of water, the human brain, DNA, the number of people who attest to knowing God, the gnawing in our hearts and minds to determine if God is there, the willingness for God to be known through Jesus Christ. If you need to know more about Jesus and reasons to believe in him, please see: Beyond Blind Faith.

If you want to begin a relationship with God now, you can.

This is your decision, no coercion here. But if you want to be forgiven by God and come into a relationship with him, you can do so right now by asking him to forgive you and come into your life. Jesus said, "Behold, I stand at the door [of your heart] and knock. He who hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into him [or her]."19 If you want to do this, but aren't sure how to put it into words, this may help: "Jesus, thank you for dying for my sins. You know my life and that I need to be forgiven. I ask you to forgive me right now and come into my life. I want to know you in a real way. Come into my life now. Thank you that you wanted a relationship with me. Amen."

God views your relationship with him as permanent. Referring to all those who believe in him, Jesus Christ said of us, "I know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand."20

Looking at all these facts, one can conclude that a loving God does exist and can be known in an intimate, personal way.
Debate Round No. 1


My opponent copied and pasted his entire opening as though it were his own.

WOW Huskysleddogslover, that is quite the opening. Quantity does not always equal quality. I will do my best to show that my opponent has chosen to bombard the onlooker with mostly trivial arguments, while hiding a few common logical arguments for me to actually address.

As I said in my opening statement, my opponent would use the Kalam Cosmological argument and the Teleological arguments. The cosmological argument goes like this

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence; Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause of its existence

And also the argument for intelligent design otherwise known as the Teleological argument.

1) The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2)It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3)Therefore, it is due to design.

Now if you remember I mentioned in the opening that I am willing to grant these two arguments as plausible so we can take this debate to my opponents personal ideology.

I may take up these arguments later, once I have successfully refuted any claims coming from my opponents religion itself. Let's begin the rebuttal.

My opponent opened with this statement.
"The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today."

I want to focus on the last portion of this sentence, "But sustains it today". What he is saying is that on top of the teleological argument his god is also involved in the sustainment of Earth. If this were the case we should be able to find verifiable evidence of a supernatural being involving itself in the world today. My opponent should strive to back up such claims.

A quick aside to address the fine tuning monologue presented by the Con; The fine tuning argument does not prove any god exists, if anything it merely describes the state of existence we find ourselves in. While it is interesting that we exist at all, we have no universal comparison to our current existence that would suggest fine tuning has actually occurred. Noticing complexity says nothing of where we come from or how we got here. The points raised about water, and the human eye, air mixture, and the like are all being pressed into the fine tuning arena by my opponent. While it may seem compelling to a person that is willing to accept that there are things within our realm of existence that can defy the laws of nature, I must see the proof of the laws of nature being defied in order to point a creature that has created the laws.

My opponent goes on to quote various scientists commenting on the lack of knowledge pertaining to the moments before the big bang. Since these are the very people that are testing the theory of the big bang on a regular basis, and comparing it to new data to confirm or deny the theory why should we then assume that we know more than the scientists that have devoted their lives to investigating the cosmos? While I am in awe of the universe, I do not pretent to know what it is, how we got here, or assert my personal beliefs where current human knowledge does not have answers. This of course leads us to the god of the gaps argument, which I would omit the god part if only to show that inserting anything in the gaps causes more harm than good. It was once thought that gods ruled the oceans and the skies, and the caves, but we as intelligent beings we have investigated these tenets of belief. I am sure Galileo did not set out to disprove the understanding of the cosmos during his time it just happened to have that effect.

"Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full instruction manual" This is a bad analogy if you wish to argue that you also have free will. If humans have a built in instruction manual then it would follow that we are acting upon our instructions.

"how did this information program wind up in each human cell?" That is a good question, but It has been answered to some degree by evolution. While we do not have the answer to abiogenesis that again does not mean insert your own meaning, and call it fact.

"you cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it." how do you know this? You cannot make claims like this without supporting it with evidence. If you evidence is that it appears to be designed, that does not actually prove that it was, and if it was designed that does not prove that you know or can know the designer, and it does not prove that the original designer still exists. Your only ground to stand on is "the bible says god did it".

Interesting how you are copy and pasting your entire opening argument. I would encourage anyone who reads this to follow the link below to bear witness to my opponents dishonesty by plagiarizing other peoples work on the web.

Not that it matters, all the above link shows is a rather long anecdote that tries to argue the point that the Poster was an atheist and then became a theist. If that is a basis for proof of anything then I can come up with many theists that have become atheists, but that would be absolutely trivial.

You are more than welcome to copy and paste other peoples work, but you MUST site the source and put it in quotations. It is funny how you are taking the stance of a god driven individual yet you haven't even the ability to put these arguments into your own words. Anyone can copy and paste, it makes me wonder if you even know anything about what you are posting. I am debating a Google search engine right now not a human being.

Yet another plagiarized site. Really?

If you want to begin a relationship with God now, you can.

Even the final plea to save your soul is a copy and paste from another site. It is one thing to proselytize to people, but to not even be sincere about it by posting someone else's words is too dishonest for a formatted debate.


Since my opponent has taken it upon himself to be blatantly dishonest I should urge you to vote in my favor if only to eliminate such cheating. I do not intend to win by default though, so I will continue in the best manner I can muster.

I was willing to grant my opponent the above mentioned arguments for an important reason.
1. We cannot assume that if there is a god that every interpretation of that god is correct.
2. We must compare the logical god to the one my opponent argues for to see if they are compatible.

If they are not compatible then the arguments I initially granted as plausible can be dismissed on the account that the criteria necessary to connect the Christian interpretation of a god to the logical arguments for a god are inconsistent.

First we must take into account the nature of the christian god.

The christian god is

All loving
All knowing
and all powerful

Despite the fact that there are obvious contradictions to this interpretation of a god let's see if the Christian god actually meets its own criteria.

Luke 1:37
"For with God nothing shall be impossible."

Just to point out this quote says confirms the notion that god is all powerful.

Judges 1:19
"And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

Wait a second. I thought god could do anything, but he apparently was unable to defeat an army because the had "chariots". I guess the author of this book forgot that God was all powerful.

Hebrews 6:18
"It was impossible for God to lie."

But I thought with god all things are possible.

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
"God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned."

Okay here again is a contradiction. Apparently god can lie. Which interpretation of the nature of god should we accept from the bible? The very fact that it is up for interpretation and explanation should be if anything a disclaimer that the bible is not inerrant.

The Gospel according to Mark is one that chronicles the life death and resurrection of Jesus. Very recently however some of the oldest biblical manuscripts to date have been found that proves the inaccuracy of the bible. The three oldest manuscripts of the gospel of mark are missing the final 12 verses. The last 12 verses of mark cover the resurrection of Jesus. There is no arguing the validity of these manuscripts they have been authenticated so what does that say for the bible?

If the earliest versions of the gospel of mark omits the resurrection of Jesus does that mean it never happened? I would argue that we don't have sufficient evidence to accept the resurrection, and this does seem to devalue what little evidence that remains. Also, if the resurrection was not part of the original story why would it have been added to later copies of the book? Does this not prove that the stories have been tampered with? If we cannot trust that one of the most important stories of the bible has not been manipulated then how are we to trust anything the bible has to say? Should we just ignore the many problems we find in the bible? If my opponent wants to use the faculties of science and our ability to understand aspects of life, then he must also consider the possibility that the bible can be falsified, and that falsification can be supported with proof.


Huskysleddogslover forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent forfeited the last round.

I wanted to try something different with this debate. If you have noticed in other debates "does God exist", or the like, the debate tends to focus on a theoretical God. The problem with focusing on a theoretical God is that it does not need any supporting evidence since it is based on a logical argument. This is a major problem we find in philosophy. Philosophy by design is not necessarily contingent upon reality. This means that it can break rules we find innate in the natural world, by inserting ideas that can fold nicely into the gaps of our knowledge. While contemplating things that are not objectively observable we are left with individual accounts about the possibility of a super being that cannot be experienced by everyone.

What I find more troubling about god claims is that even if a god/s were able to communicate with people here and now, how does the individual come to the conclusion as to which god it was that spoke with them? It also seems that Christians who claim to have been visited by a messenger of god are (as far as I know) never visited by gods of other religions, and the same could be said for people of other faiths. This seem to be a possible common case of confirmation bias.

By giving in to the God of the person I am debating, it can force the debate into a discussion of the connection/s of my opponents god or gods, and their worldly evidence, like the bible. This of course makes the debate more complex, but it brings it to a place where we will find answers. I am confident that the bible is the single most significant point of failure for the Christian faith as holy texts tend to be for other faiths.

This tactic of forcing the God debates into the holy books could be extremely useful in future debates. There is no shortage self refuting text withing the christian bible.

I have encouraged my opponent to try to continue this debate in an honest manner, but it seems he may have opted out of it.


Huskysleddogslover forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


No, a God, or gods do not exist.


There are so many indications that there is a God. This world and this universe are just too complex to be a result of randomization. Saying the Earth came to be this way from explosions is preposterous. That is like put a flashlight in a bag and shaking the bag and saying it will eventually all come together. Also evolution is not totality fake I believe in micro evolution but I do not believe that we use to be monkeys that is just ridiculous. One more thing if you truly call yourself a christian you know as well as I do you shouldn't always start debates over this it just causes anger but you should just love one another.
Debate Round No. 4


Gonzosvita forfeited this round.


Huskysleddogslover forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Huskysleddogslover 7 years ago
sorry my internet has been down
Posted by Gonzosvita 7 years ago
Mistakes happen, but I just want to point out that this is a very big one. If you ever want to be taken seriously in intellectual circles you must always site your sources. With that said, Don't throw in the towel just yet Con. Let's keep this going to the end.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
I assume Pro will get better with practice!
As do we all.
Posted by Huskysleddogslover 7 years ago
I just wanted to be in a debate and I am bad at debating
Posted by SNP1 7 years ago
Wow.. Just wow... Pro's only decent point is #3, and even that is extremely weak and refutable.
Posted by DylanLang 7 years ago
To be completely honest i'm not saying there is a god or there is not. Like many i just need a little proof, and once i see it i will believe. But really can we say how we were created? Were we there when our kind came upon the earth? What i'm trying to say is that all anyone or any religion has is a theory on how we came into existence. We can't really find out unless we were there and if you were there i'm sorry but your birth certificate should say Expired.
Posted by BradK 7 years ago
Hold on, you have to prove that you exist before you can worry about other people like god. And you can't even disprove the brains in jars theory. So you lose this debate before it even starts.
Posted by Longline 7 years ago
Is my butt real?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Empiren 7 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro should at least read Con's opening statement. I mean he basically predicted the argument then Pro went on to make arguments that were even worse. Ugh.
Vote Placed by Sagey 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: It's a bit like choosing between rational arguments and irrational arguments. Pro provided the irrational, arguments from ignorance ( like I cannot understand how an explosion created a universe, so therefore God exists) that is an irrational argument from ignorance. Which applies to nearly all of Pro's arguments, such as fine tuning which Con pointed out. While Con's arguments are more rational and pointed out some of Pro's fallacies, though letting Pro get away with the teleological and cosmological fallacies is a little disappointing. I was going to give Con the conduct point for hanging in there but Con forfeited in the end so it stays tied.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.