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

Does God exist? Is there proof for His existence?

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: 10/31/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,290 times Debate No: 118797
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (31)
Votes (1)




Lately, There has been a lot of controversy over the question for the existence of God. There are many people that say that God does not exist and that there is no proof that any greater being created the universe, Or life, But that it was created through supposedly "rational" means.

I am here to dispute that. There is, In fact, Extensive evidence for a divine creator, And any supposed "rational" means, Like evolution, Are scientifically false.

Please note that I am not here to argue how old the universe, Or the earth, Is. I actually hold the 6000-year-old earth theory with a grain of salt. I am here to argue for the existence of a God who created the universe, And who still looks over us today.

God is NOT dead.


Happy to be debate this topic.

I will be the one rebutting your arguments primarily and if need be add my own argument to explain a point that I cannot explain in a rebut.

Take it away TornadoDog33, I am ready for the extensive evidence.

Debate Round No. 1


Ok. Let's start off by stating that seeing is NOT believing. Just because you can't see God does NOT mean that he does not exist. You can't see air or gravity, But both have been proven to exist.

Let's talk about the earth. According to evolutionists, The Earth is just a clump of rocks, Pulled together by gravity, That happened to attract rocks that contained water, So eventually, By chance, It formed a hydrogen-oxygen environment that was suitable for life. I'll be the first to say that this is just a basic summary, And quick internet research will reveal it to be more than that.

However, Science has shown that, If life were to exist on a planet, A large number of factors, Including:
- Correct distance from a star
- A stable star
- Right atmoshperic pressure
- The correct atmosperic ingredients

and a whole lot of other factors (I haven't come across the exact number, But I am sure it is in the hundreds) needed for life to exist. And these factors need to be extremely fine-tuned- if one were just a little bit off, Than life could not exist (i. E. If the earth were a miniscule distance closer or farther from the sun, It would be too hot or cold for life to exist). If you think about it, The chance that something this detailed could happen all on it's own is about impossible, So it is logical in this instance to believe that something must have orchestrated the entire thing.

About evolution- other than minor adaptations between species in different environments (microevolution), Evolution has never been documented (yeah, I know- "OMG, You're gonna use this argument? LAAAME! ". Just hear me out), Because it is impossible for species to evolve into something else (macroevolution). Why? First of all, In order for a species to evolve, There needs to be a major change in the genes of that species (and I'm not talking about mutations or genetic modification-type changes- I'm talking tomato-grows-fins or ape-turns-into-human type changes- sound familiar? ). The thing is, There is no way, Artificial or natural, That kind of a change can be implemented. It just can't be done.

Second, According to evolutionists, Life began as a combination of non-living "primordial soup" and certain gasses in the atmosphere (kind of a bad summary- correct me if I'm wrong), And, Even then, Scientists aren't sure if that's the case. The thing is, This assumption is automatically invalidated by the Law of Biogenesis, Which states that life cannot come from non-life. I'm sure you're now thinking about the Miller-Urey experiment. The thing is, The research for that information was faulty. It assumed the wrong gasses existed about 4 billion years ago. When research was done again and the gasses were changed, Scientists found that no life was created under these gasses, Thereby casting doubt on the experiment itself. Https://answersingenesis. Org/origin-of-life/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis/

Third, There are some things in biology that evolution just can't explain- for example, DNA. If the basis for evolution all rests on DNA, Then where did DNA itself come from? How did DNA evolve? Some scientists might say that it evolved from RNA- if that is the case, Then where did RNA come from?

Now, You could ask the same question for God- where did God come from? Who created God? The problem with applying the same question for God is that you assume a physical, Limited God. While this is true for DNA (that it is physical and limited), It is not true for the Almighty himself. The very definition of a "god" assumes an unlimited, Powerful being who is not limited by the things he creates. To put God in that box is illogical.

Well, That is my starting argument. Off to you.

Also, If you want to read up on this info, Check out "The Case For A Creator" by Lee Strobel. He goes more in depth on this than I ever could. (Also, I'd like to note that Mr. Strobel actually used to be atheistic, Before he researched on the subject of God, Which convinced him to be a Christian. You should check out his story. There was actually a movie made about it, Believe it or not).


"seeing is NOT believing. Just because you can't see God does NOT mean that he does not exist. You can't see air or gravity, But both have been proven to exist. "

Seeing is believing in most cases. If I see milk then that is milk. Someone who has problems with vision might see something else. That instance seeing for them was not correct since they had a poor eyesight. I can say you can't see an unicorn's does NOT mean that unicorn's do not exist. We can test air and gravity we cannot test for a God. That is the difference. Elaborate.

"The chance that something this detailed could happen all on it's own is about impossible, So it is logical in this instance to believe that something must have orchestrated the entire thing. "

Your giving chance too much thought. By saying the chance is too low you are saying that it is more impossible then possible. We still do not have enough information to prove how we survived through our evolution. By you jumping onto God suggests to me that you have more information in favour of God. I don't see that to be the case because you just explained evolution and said it is more logical that God created us. I want more information on why God is logical to believe. Why are the chances of God creating everything more possible then Evolution? Where is the evidence to back this claim since the only thing I remember you speaking about evolution not about God.

"The thing is, There is no way, Artificial or natural, That kind of a change can be implemented. It just can't be done. "

You have provided no evidence only stated why it is wrong. Implemented I am assuming from God. How did you figure that out from stating "There is no way" suggesting to me it is impossible. Why is the God one more probable? Do you have evidence of God's work or something that we can test that is impossible without outside help? Don't want to argue Miler-Urey because it was supposed to be an example for the existence of God it wasn't. If what you say is right the experiment is wrong scientist will try again and possibly find a way how life is created. If religion was wrong would they change?

"Scientists found that no life was created under these gases, Thereby casting doubt on the experiment itself"

This experiment was assumption on what would be the correct condition for life to exist. It can be that they'd used the wrong gases. My argument would be nothing is impossible. That is a broad claim but could you predicted the Internet existing before it did? (I wasn't around so asking you) To me that is more plausible then a transcendent God. Why? You are explaining known from an unknown. Miller Urey experiment did a test with known elements. That is the difference.

"To put God in that box is illogical. "

You are saying we cannot used reasoned conducted or principle to validate the existence of God? So it is a faith argument then. To me that is an easy way of stopping the argument without giving proper evidence. What is God then? Anything I want to make it is. Surely you can also assume that religion putting God into the box is also illogical so that you remain consistent. From your idea God is transcendent and should not be followed because if we can put him in a box then we are misrepresenting him. By you saying that all religions are false or agree that religion is based on faith so why are you having this argument if it isn't a logical or rational one?

I was going to say something else entirely but reading the last paragraph made be want to change how I wanted to end it. For you to say putting God in a box is illogical cannot stop me from assuming Religion is based on faith and not logic and reasoning. You tried logically to prove God's existence but then you gave up and stated God is illogical. How am I meant to give a point of contention? If you believe God is illogical then all religions that have a God in it is also illogical due to characterizing him in a certain way. So logically all religions that say anything about God are wrong.

Debate Round No. 2


TornadoDog33 forfeited this round.


Why did you forfeit?

I assumed that you made a 5 round debate to complete it not forfeit in the 3 round.

Debate Round No. 3


TornadoDog33 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


TornadoDog33 forfeited this round.


I don't see the point creating a debate if you don't intend on finishing. Oh well.
Debate Round No. 5
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 31 through 31 records.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
Define evidence. . .
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Leaning 3 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I found Cons arguements convincing as they pointed out flaws in the arguements by Pro. Such as life being unlikely not automatically pointing to deity. Arguement that flask not use correct gasses. And the whole box thing, since putting forth evidence and logic is kind of boxing him so to speak. Maybe if Pro had stuck around for later rounds he could have tried something different. My advice would have been to try to whitewash round 1 and start over from scratch. Not appearing for rounds scheduled is generally considered poor conduct, though it can be excused if a reasonable excuse/apology is given I think. Which in this case was not. Eh, the book will be on my eventual reading list.

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