The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Does God 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
kidpsyco has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/27/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 663 times Debate No: 95667
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)




Does God Exist? I say yes. Prove me wrong!
You start the first argument.


The question is "Does God Exist", insinuating that there is one God. Different people claim different Gods. God is a human idea, if it was not we would see the animals going to pray on a schedule. Of course in this human idea of god, animals are excluded from heaven. God was an idea created by man. If God was not an idea created by man, any God would most certainly end all of the confusion by just showing up and saying hi. Unless He is a deadbeat dad, ignoring billions of his children's cries to make himself known in an indisputable way. Instead of in a few chapters of a book written by man a few thousand years ago.

Your arguments may turn to the Bible. However the Bible is a novel. You cannot attribute any certifications for a book to the books author, assuming the Bible was divined from God. You must come us with arguments outside of Gods word to certify their authenticity. To quote the Bible to prove the Bible is to quote an untruth to prove an untruth. You must go outside of the Bible to authenticate. Proof requires a double blind study. Where there are two subject groups. One which does one thing and another does another thing, but is a placebo. No one knows who is doing what, not even the recorders of the data. You may not quote the Bible as it is not accepted as truth.

In all double blind studies regarding God, not one has been able to determine that "God" is real. Not one credible experiment in all of human history. This leaves us to the God paradox, in which God would not allow an experiment to prove or disprove His existence. If there is a God, why would this character not make himself known in a grand way? Why would he not hug his children in a real physical way. Why would he have made his children to crave physical attachment only to deny them by making himself physically unavailable. It is simply because there is no God.

In this modern day, is there a reason for God to hide its self? If so what is the reason. If you answer "it is Gods will" then you perpetuate the conundrum. You take that stance you must be speaking for Him, and if you do must substantiate that you are a qualified speaker qualified by God.

"God" may exist, I do not dispute that. However Golden Unicorns may exist too. We cannot disprove a negative.

I challenge God to show himself in a large and meaningful way to appear over a large city (or at least my house) and for at least one hour take and answer questions from his children. If he does not do this by September 26th, 2016, on our calendar, I declare him an unfit parent.

You may claim that he does not work on his children's time, however he can. So take one for the kids and appear for us.

If God does not appear, I declare him an unfit parent. And I also say the reason he didn't show up is because there is no God.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting the debate and wish him good luck.

I agree with my opponent saying that I cannot use the Bible for evidence that "God exists," but to rather support my claims.

Now, my opponents asks this often asked question: If God is real why doesn't He show himself to the whole world?
Well, obviously God could make his existence more evident to the world then He has. He could have the stars spell out "God exists," in the sky or have every fish in the sea spell on the side of them "God made this." God isn't interested in just getting people to believe THAT He exists. He wants us to have a loving and saving relationship with Himself. When He created us, He created us to be free creatures who are able to freely pick and choose to do what we want. He gives us the choice to either choose to have a relationship with him, or to reject him and go on with our lives. If God just popped up in the middle of everyone's room as some uninvited intruder, that wouldn't lead at all to a deeper faith or love in Him, but actually get quite annoying. Its not an adequate response to complain that you want more evidence. I don't see any reason here why God would do what you suggest because it may be that it would do nothing in terms of bringing people to a saving relationship with him. In other words, God didn"t create you to be a robot. He gives you the freedom to make moral choices. God made you in his image, so you"re not like an animal that just goes by instinct.
In Deuteronomy 30:15, the Bible says, "Today I am giving you a choice between good and evil, between life and death"
Saying "If God doesn't reveal himself to me right now He doesn't exist!" doesn't disprove God's existence.

Now while you find it hard to comprehend why God doesn't just appear in your room and show himself to everybody,
I find it hard to comprehend how the whole universe arrived from NOTHING. Now think about this: The human brain. The human brain can think, decide, and learn. And now the human eye, the birds that can fly, eat walk and are fully functional. Now us, intelligent beings, can we make a bird that can grow feathers, breath, walk, fly, see and recognize danger, hunt, eat, dive, see underwater, etc? Well? Evolution, or the Big Bang says all this came from a big explosion (pretty much a disaster) and happened to come together perfectly to create the universe and everything here. I think an intelligent creator is much more plausible than everything appearing by chance. If you had a glass jar with salt and pepper filled half and half and you mixed the two up. If you shook it up for a billion years, would the salt ever be separated from the pepper again and return to its original state? I think the ridiculousness of the salt and pepper example is nothing compared to the ridiculousness of the whole idea saying that the whole universe, let alone us, just appeared here from a big disastrous explosion.
By this paragraph I am not trying to prove the existence of God. All I am saying is that God creating the universe sounds like a much more plausible explanation than the Big Bang Theory.

Once again, I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and I wish him good luck in the following rounds.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by BackCommander 2 years ago
@HGA The point is that until every human on the planet "sees the acts of God" and are as convinced as those who claim they already have, a believer's words have no weight to them. If an all-knowing and all-powerful being showed himself to you, never showed himself to me, and we both have the same criteria of repentance and faith in his existence as the keys to salvation, YOU have been given an unfair advantage, wouldn't you say? Many live and die without ever knowing of your specific religion, seems extra unfair to them, right?

So many of you, from countless faiths, walk about this planet believing you're the ones with all the answers. It's shocking that all of you can be so sure when it's obvious you can't ALL be right.

Theists who have already commented on this, I have a question for you. Do you believe because you've spent your life searching for the answers and your religion makes the most sense, or do you believe because you've always believed, because it's the one you were taught?
Posted by Zaephou 2 years ago
HGA: personal experiences can be affected by the subjectivity of the mind, that is why any Godly personal experience abides to the person's beliefs of God. A Hindu would see Vishnu, a Christian would see God. This is why personal experiences can be dismissed as irrefutable evidence because, it is perhaps the weakest form of evidence, subjective evidence.
Posted by Zaephou 2 years ago
'Prove me wrong!' Already shifting the burden of proof. Easy win for con.
Posted by Khons 2 years ago
The humanoid figure they found and named Lucy, well she was a fake she was made of pig bones, so if you do not believe me challenge me then. I WILL win.
Posted by EnigmaRant 2 years ago
@aarish What article or fact is there that's been documented that evolution is real? And there are many proven facts that God is real even video and photographic evidence and witnesses and countless testimonies, oh but of course those aren't enough.
Posted by Woofis 2 years ago
What God do you speak off? I believe in intellectual design by a high authority, but as far as major religions go and the gods they speak of it's all plagerized from ancient religions.
Posted by wolf24 2 years ago
@HGA I definitely agree with you. I went into more detail on that.
Posted by HGA 2 years ago
Con challenges God to appear before his eyes, but would that still wouldn't be enough evidence for God, apparently. Christians often claim seeing God work through people and healing them of their disabilities, but when they share these miracles with non-believers, they call the believer "biased" or "delusional". It's actually the reason many believers came to know God today, because they see Him through personal experiences. I agree it's hardly evidence that God exists on a public scale, but it's perhaps one of the main reasons Christianity is alive and well today. Just my thoughts on that section specifically, and it isn't intended to defuse any of Con's arguments. I look forward to seeing how this debate plays out, and wish the best for both sides.
Posted by aarish 2 years ago
Con is right. There is no god. Today creation theory which states that the universe was created by god and the life was created by god has been proved wrong. Evolution theory has been proved right. Today there are many evidences which support evolution. I would also like to tell that creationist often argue that evolution is not seen in modern days but evolution has been observed in modern days. Evolution is a scientific fact. Now someone will say that if evolution is a scientific fact it should become a law. Evolution is a proven fact and it will become a law soon.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.