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

Evolution is a fact

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  
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: 6/20/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 914 times Debate No: 115816
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)




The scientific evidence is undeniable. There is an enormous consensus that evolution is true. To disagree with this is to deny facts. People who oppose this have a world view that anything that disagrees with their holy book is wrong. They are delusional and cherry-pick false evidence.

See the sense that is science.

Vote pro


Thanks for the opportunity here, and great to meet you, LoveRichardDawkins. Original name- I like it.

Evolution is not fact, given the following definition. While we can say that it has been "repeatedly confirmed," Evolution should not be "for all practical purposes accepted as true." The reason I believe such, is due to how we have not been able to accurately test and fully confirm the ideas behind Evolution, yet.

For example, a related issue of Evolution is natural selection. Natural selection was brought up by Darwin, however, what he offered was more hypothesis than proof. Darwin is noted as being an observer, when he noticed a living thing of relation to another (a pattern), he wrote it down then sought to answer why after forming a statement about his observations- a hypothesis. He would continue to observe patterns, leading to those "deductions" as referred to in the definition below. However, there was little to no testing done- rather, it was left to analyzing observations of his and forming those hypothesis's about them.

In the end, we can argue that because there was no testing and with assuring/valid results done by Darwin, he cannot state his observations as facts. On account of testing natural selection, there has not been a great way of doing so.

We can argue about how even today the fossil record, to which is the supposed key to testing natural selection, is doubtful and can be considerably inaccurate according to Dr. Alex Dunhill, a paleontologist, ecologist, and biologist, "paleontologists are right to be cautious about the quality of the fossil record, but perhaps some have been too cautious. The sequence of fossils in the rocks more or less tells us the story of the history of life, and we have sensible ways of dealing with uncertainty. Some recent work on 'correcting' the fossil record by using formation counts may produce nonsense results." Dunnhill was referring to a study he had done juxtaposing a large fossil record with factors involving geography and the environment. This study and quote was taken from a news article. [2]

Another, more specific means of testing (and please correct me if I am confusing myself with these concepts) is carbon dating in which tells us the age of a fossil. Even this means of testing has been questioned by Evangelist/Creationist, Kent Hovind, in which he asks a, in my opinion, brilliant question- Hovind introduces a candle to the audience in a presentation. He talks about how empirical science can help us measure the candle such as the size of it's wick, but then asks the audience, "when was it lit?" He applies this concept to carbon dating by claiming how you can't tell when the organism of the carbon dated fossil died unless you make assumptions. So, we can deduce that if we can't really tell when the the organism died, we can't tell when it was born, how long it lived, etc. You can find the video here on YouTube (I will note that it is a compilation promoting Christianity and putting down Evolutionists such as Bill Nye, specifically.) [3] However, if you do not want to see this compilation for such bias, the full video is posted here on YouTube. [4]

Theory: "In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
Law: "A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances."
Hypothesis: "A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested."
Fact: "In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true.""
These definitions we're taken from the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) [1]

[1] NCSE, "Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work"

[2], "How good is the fossil record?"

[3] Kent Hovind, Christian compilation

[4] Kent Hovind, speech in full
Debate Round No. 1


I'm amazed that you would cite creationist non-scientific idiots as a reliable source to disprove carbon dating. The fact is that we do know when the candle was lit. The same is true for carbon dating. We can prove that carbon dating works because it continues to provide reliable results. By your very definition: "In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true.". This is the case in the scientific world. No serious scientist with any qualification doesn't believe in evolution. Also the process of both evolution and natural selection has been observed in moths:

Charles Darwin provided a hypothesis that has an overwhelming body of evidence for it. Your main argument is that because we cannot see evolution happening therefore we can't be sure of its truth. This is nonsense. The same argument could be applied to quantum field theory, gravity, the big bang and all kinds of accepted truths in science. I think that idiot Ken Ham has used this silly argument quite a few times before. We don't have to see it to know it's true. Otherwise why would we ever lock up murderers or terrorists? After all the Jury didn't see them kill a load of people. We have an overwhelming mass of evidence (not cherry picked false studies) supporting evolution. That is why it is in High school text books and why it is on the national curriculum. You can't debate facts so don't try. Don't take my word for it. Listen to what scientists are telling you. Evolution is an undeniable fact just like climate change.

Also evolution can be tested. We have done tests showing that certain traits are more desirable and are thus more likely to be passed on:

Therefore darwin's hypothesis (unopposed) does have sufficient empirical evidence to back it up. No serious scientist denies it. Most people who oppose it tend to be of some evangelical persuasion.

I call to the audience: DON'T BE STUPID.

Vote yes


Please, let's be respectful of everyone involved in this debate from you and me down to the viewers and those who comment as I will aim to do the same.

I did a little research centered around your persistent claim that "every scientist with qualification agrees with evolution." What I found was multiple petitions by scientists actually against evolution. Here's one that was noted by Evolution News and was specifically signed against Darwinian Evolution. The following passage is directly taken from the article [1]:

"Over 500 doctoral scientists have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution. The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington."

Please, allow me to clarify. I did not argue that "we cannot see evolution happening," rather, I argued that- and I quote- "we have not been able to accurately test and fully confirm the ideas behind Evolution, yet." To put it simply, the scientific community as a whole has not been able to trust and confirm these beliefs- as proven through the passage above.

I am willing to believe you when you say that "we do know when the candle was lit" so long as you can prove HOW we do so.

Yes, Dovind is a Creationist and has the biased motivation to persuade the audience of Creationism. However, I ask you- is it not a valid and reasonable question for anyone to say, regardless of their beliefs? Please, do watch it and you may find some interesting points that are worth considering.

"We don't have to see it to know it's true." This is a common argument for religion- are you suggesting that Evolution is faith-based?

Once again, the moths are an example of a hypothesis- they clearly state that it is a observation within the article entry, yet I have not yet found they have tested this hypothesis. They note how Sewall Wright argued that it is "the clearest case in which a conspicuous evolutionary process has actually been observed," for example.

- Sources -
[1] Evolution News, Robert L. Crowther, II, "Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin"s Theory of Evolution"
Debate Round No. 2


I reject your subtle suggestion that I am being disrespectful. I have no respect for bad ideas but I am not disrespecting people for themselves only if they believe in things which aren't true.

Now 1 petition is not at all any evidence of serious doubt in the scientific community. Of course the scientific community is not a monolith but no scientist that is taken seriously has doubts over the fact of evolution. Evolution happens and we have observed it. There is no way you can do experiments to prove evolution but the same goes for the big bang and climate change. We use logical explanation, observation and testing of predictions. We could predict that a species of moths would turn black through evolution and they did.

We can prove that we know when the candle was lit by the way. We use reliable dating methods. Which have been proven to be true and reliable.

Once again, I can't fully explain how overwhelming the scientific body of evidence supporting evolution. This should not be a debate. You can't debate an accepted fact.

" "We don't have to see it to know it's true." This is a common argument for religion- are you suggesting that Evolution is faith-based?" No it isn't. Scientist use other ways to measure and calculate. We don't see global warming causing climate change but we know that it does. The same is true for evolution. We know that natural selection and genetic variation takes place in animals. We know that life has been around for a long time. We know that there are genomic patterns showing that we all share ancestry. We know that early humans migrated out of Africa. We know that certain species of moths changed based on an environmental change. We know that there were other species of human. And yet people still argue that this isn't enough. The consensus is overwhelming and therefore the scientific community is able to trust the FACT of evolution.

The professors you cited have voiced concerns over the impact of natural selection as the filter process. I have heard this argument. In no way does it doubt the existence of evolution it merely states and is mentioned in the book What Darwin got Wrong that there may be some internal constraints that filter genetic variation and NOT that evolution doesn't happen and NOT that natural selection isn't a filter merely that other filters exist.

Once again I call to the audience: DON'T BE STUPID.

Vote yes


Each time you have told the audience not to be stupid. I find this rather disrespectful of their ability to decide who to vote for. On the subject of respect, I feel that it is a universal idea that being in a debate means you must adopt the concept of tolerance. You must be able to tolerate other ideas and be open to them. Now, this does not mean you have to believe these ideas, but rather, be open to considering the idea such as the "why" the "how," etc. Let the people form their own decisions without having to be called stupid. But never mind respect, I will continue the debate.

It is not one petition, it is one of many. Here are a few articles that show this happening across the world:
"Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition," Kenneth Chang, the New York Times
"Antievolution petition rebuffed in Serbia," Glenn Branch, the National Center for Science Education
"Anti-Darwin comments in India outrage scientists," T.V. Padma, Nature
Besides this, can you not deny the fact that these are startling numbers of doubters for the idea of Evolution? Does this not cast wonder as to why there is such doubt?

"Testing of predictions" but "there is no way you can do experiments," seems like contradictory statements. Forgive me, if I misunderstand the context here.

You have had very vague explanations that simply consist of 'yes we can, because of this.' Yet, you do not go into the 'how' and specifically 'what.' For example, on the subject of when the candle was lit, how do you use these dating methods? What specific dating methods are you referring to? How can you prove that they are "true and reliable?" Is there people in the community that reasonably doubts these methods?

The point in citing these professors is that they are proof that people doubt the methods used to explain and prove Evolution- it is not proven to be reliable, necessarily in their views.

"The consensus is overwhelming and therefore the scientific community is able to trust the FACT of evolution." But this is not a accepted fact by the science community as a whole- otherwise there would be no opposition in the forms of these petitions, for example. If there is such a large number of doubt in the scientific community how can a person such as you or I believe in this idea of Evolution?

Facts, by the definition I have provided, requires that these observations "have been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true."" If people have been claiming that some methods used to prove Evolution are not accurate, logically would they fully confirm and regard these observations as truth? Would those who have repeatedly been signing and forming anti-petitions fully confirm and regard these observations as truth?
Debate Round No. 3


I completely reject your notion of my disrespect. I have not called the audience stupid. I encouraged them to not be stupid and vote in a why that would deny blatant fact. Of course they have the ability to decide and vote however voting for an idea that has been proven to be completely wrong is stupid and delusional. I am not tolerant of all ideas. But I am always open to persuasion if sufficient evidence is provided. Ideas that are immoral or factually wrong merit absolutely no respect. I am amazed that there are people that deny the fact of evolution and if you believe evolution is wrong then I'm afraid you are under a delusion or stupid.

Now, again and again you provide me with articles. Let me remind you: articles are not proof of consensus. There are articles that say climate change is not real and yet only 3% of scientists actually believe this. When it comes to evolution it is not only accepted by absolutely every single scientific authority (which you are denying) but a whopping 97% of scientists believe in evolution according to a 2009 poll by Pew Research Centre. That is an absolutely crushing consensus. You have to tell me why I shouldn't accept that huge weight of scientific authority that provides. Furthermore, the articles you have provided only explain that they believe evolution is not due to natural processes. This belief is shared by about 13% of scientists (from the same poll). This is a more acceptable belief and there is a debate in science over the significance of natural selection as a phenotypic filter. However, there is absolutely no debate in science over the existence of evolution and no half-baked nutty creationist article containing nothing but poorly supported assertions is going to change the overwhelming consensus of almost all scientists that evolution exists. I want to ask you: would you believe in evolution if all the scientific authorities in the world came to you and explained the process and told you it was true? Do you believe that climate change exists as well? And how old is the earth? I don't know you at all but something tells me that you seem to think that we can deny these authorities.

Now of course there will never be 100% consensus on evolution. Some rogue scientists (often not at all respected) will always deny the evidence. But I think 97% is a pretty clear idea of what is known to be true surely? The current consensus is absolutely sufficient to consider evolution a fact of the natural world.

My explanations concerning how we gain scientific evidence were not at all vague. Again will the candle analogy we do know when it was lit. We use dating methods that we know work to work it out. We repeat measurements to incredibly precision. In my old lab in Colorado we used to use computers that could provide data on sedimentary rock to 20 decimal points. Furthermore, we know that our techniques and methods are reliable because we can make predictions using them that come true and we have witnessed them providing repeatably reliable results. There is a burden of proof that it is absolutely reliable. That's HOW.

Finally, we do not need to see an event to know that that event occurred. Because we use other methods to measure magnitudes surrounding that event to confirm the existence of that event. We have, as I already described conducted measurements and experiments confirming the existence of evolution. We have used carbon dating. We have measured displays of fossils in sedimentary rock. We have observed and decoded the human and now almost all ape genomes. And guess what? It all points in one direction - that we evolved from a common ancestor of modern day apes. Natural selection has been proven to exist. We have observed this process. We know that species of plants some of which have a special form of insecticide called pyrethrum live longer and produce more offspring. This is empirical evidence for evolution. If some people choose to not believe this then they are delusional or stupid. And almost all scientists do as well as every single scientific authority. There is a reason this is taught in High School: it is a FACT.

So to win this debate I have to show that:

1) Evolution is accepted as fact for all practical purposes by the scientific community
2) There is sufficient empirical evidence for the process of evolution

I have won this debate because I have shown that despite some exceptions almost all serious scientists (97%) know evolution to be true. Your petitions have been arguing that the process of evolution is still true but that other phenotypic filters are also involved. Therefore evolution absolutely is accepted as fact by the scientific community and by all scientific authorities everywhere.

Next I have shown that there is sufficient evidence for it. 1; I have shown that our methods for obtaining such evidence are accurate and reliable. Why? Because they provide precise measurements. Because we can make accurate predictions using the data collected in this way. And because they are repeatedly providing trending results in the physical world. 2; I have shown that this data points out that evolution exists. Why? Because we have found cases of species evolving due to natural selection (Black peppered moths, Chrysanthemums). Because we have found genomic and historical findings supporting evolution (human and chimpanzee genome, fossils etc.)

Based on my proof of the 2 facts there is little doubt that I have proved that Evolution is an undeniable fact and thus I have won this debate.

"You can't even begin to understand biology, you can't understand life, unless you understand what it's all there for, how it arose - and that means evolution." (Richard Dawkins)

"Today's debate about evolution is as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes around the sun" (Richard Dawkins)

Audience: When a scientist says Evolution is real you should trust them but when millions of them say it, your text books say it, your government says it and every museum is screaming out to you that its true then you should know it.

I went to the natural history museum in London a couple months ago on a trip. It has a wonderful exhibition on human evolution. I would advise everyone to go see it.

Once again: DON'T BE STUPID - Vote YES.


First of all, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to debate with you, once again. You have given me some things to consider, and I appreciate that and you for it. Honestly, it shouldn't matter who wins or loses as I had, as mentioned, learned and also enjoyed this debate. That's all that I should/care about in the end- enjoying myself as well as learning. I believe that you should as well.

"I have not called the audience stupid. I encouraged them to not be stupid and vote in a why that would deny blatant fact. Of course they have the ability to decide and vote however voting for an idea that has been proven to be completely wrong is stupid and delusional." My apologies, I misunderstood. Nevertheless you have referred to the audience as stupid for not believing in a opinion contrary to what is believed or assumed to be the 'correct answer.' Please consider how some may view this as offensive and disrespectful. All people are entitled to their opinions, and if they firmly believe them and do what they can to support those opinions, I believe they are worth considering- no matter how different the opinions may be.

To conclude my argument, I stand firmly with my belief that there has not been a trusted method to proving Evolution, given logical and what I deem is reasonable doubt that they truly answer some questions that are intended to be answered- such as carbon dating with the candle analogy/question. To me, I have not been given sufficient enough evidence to agree that the methods are reliable and trustworthy both from my own research and the methods provided by you. In other words, I do not believe you have proven how effective they really are and how truly accurate they are at that- you simply give the reason you believe them to be accurate.

For example you state that they use precise measurements." Precise measurements can be incorrect, as well as correct- it simply is the equivalent to careful research, not accurate research at times. If we had more rounds, I would ask you what makes a "accurate prediction."

As for your percentage, you would be correct. You would also be correct in saying that there will always be a percentage who doubt, but that is not against my belief/point that doubt is doubt no matter the size- and that that doubt should be considered with reason.

On account of sources, as I recall, you have only cited two of your claims (moths from Wikipedia and the Pew Research percentage- to which you have not provided a title or anything for me to look it up off of at that), so while I can believe your claims to be true and general knowledge, I have no sources to prove them- by this logic, I don't believe I can consider these points as true without doing research on my own to confirm them. Yes, I do use articles, but I believe that the mass of the internet is articles or entries entered into websites- so by this logic, yes, all my information comes from articles/web-entries.

If it matters and you truly do care- I have always believed in a form of Evolution (because yes, Christians can agree as well- seemingly opposing your belief that they do not)- but not that it has been accurately measured yet, thus we can't consider it true and hence I believe by definition that it cannot be deemed a fact. This, however, is simply my opinion/position just as you believe Evolution is a fact.

If you have any questions for me, comment or message me and I will be happy to answer anyone's questions.

Audience: Vote for whoever you believe won/lost. I honestly thank you for/appreciate the vote no matter who you vote for.

Once again, just thank you for/appreciate the opportunity, LoveRichardDawkins. Hope we meet again sometime!
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Matpat 3 years ago
So...if evolution is a fact then why haven't humans changed into some new species in the past 10,000+ years? Why are apes still apes if "they are human ancestors?" And so on.
Posted by zRoyaltyz 3 years ago
@ backwardseden

Darwinian Evolution claimed that there would be a change of kinds. Can you give me observable evidence for a change of kinds?
Posted by canis 3 years ago
Bacterias are becomming impossible to kill. Rats are getting resistant to poisen..And dogs are geting uglier.
Posted by thetruthwillout 3 years ago

Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God. Scientists today are eliminating models of God, but they are not eliminating God. If you translate this into Arabic, it is La illaha illal la, There is no god, (god with a small "g" that is fake god) but God (with a capital "G").

Surah Fussilat:

"Soon We will show them our signs in the (farthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?"

[Al-Quran 41:53]
Posted by thetruthwillout 3 years ago
The only logical answer to the question as to who could have mentioned all these scientific facts 1400 years ago before they were discovered, is exactly the same answer initially given by the atheist or any person, to the question who will be the first person who will be able to tell the mechanism of the unknown object. It is the "CREATOR", the producer, the Manufacturer of the whole universe and its contents. In the English language He is "God", or more appropriate in the Arabic language, "ALLAH".


Let me remind you that the Qur"an is not a book of Science, "S-C-I-E-N-C-E" but a book of Signs "S-I-G-N-S" i.e. a book of ayaats. The Qur"an contains more than 6,000 ayaats, i.e. "signs", out of which more than a thousand speak about Science. I am not trying to prove that the Qur"an is the word of God using scientific knowledge as a yard stick because any yardstick is supposed to be more superior than what is being checked or verified. For us Muslims the Qur"an is the Furqan i.e. criteria to judge right from wrong and the ultimate yardstick which is more superior to scientific knowledge.

But for an educated man who is an atheist, scientific knowledge is the ultimate test which he believes in. We do know that science many a times takes "U" turns, therefore I have restricted the examples only to scientific facts which have sufficient proof and evidence and not scientific theories based on assumptions. Using the ultimate yardstick of the atheist, I am trying to prove to him that the Qur"an is the word of God and it contains the scientific knowledge which is his yardstick which was discovered recently, while the Qur"an was revealed 1400 year ago. At the end of the discussion, we both come to the same conclusion that God though superior to science, is not incompatible with it.
Posted by thetruthwillout 3 years ago
The light of the moon can be its own light or a reflected light. The Qur"an rightly says it is a reflected light. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/2 and the probability that both the guesses i.e the earth is spherical and the light of the moon is reflected light is 1/30 x 1/2 = 1/60.

Further, the Qur"an also mentions every living thing is made of water. Every living thing can be made up of either wood, stone, copper, aluminum, steel, silver, gold, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, oil, water, cement, concrete, etc. The options are say about 10,000. The Qur"an rightly says that everything is made up of water. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/10,000 and the probability of all the three guesses i.e. the earth is spherical, light of moon is reflected light and everything is created from water being correct is 1/30 x 1/2 x 1/10,000 = 1/60,000 which is equal to about .0017%.

The Qur"an speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation. Only in three options the result is .0017%. I leave it upto you, to work out the probability if all the hundreds of the unknown facts were guesses, the chances of all of them being correct guesses simultaneously and there being not a single wrong guess. It is beyond human capacity to make all correct guesses without a single mistake, which itself is sufficient to prove to a logical person that the origin of the Qur"an is Divine.
Posted by thetruthwillout 3 years ago
In mathematics there is a theory known as "Theory of Probability". If you have two options, out of which one is right, and one is wrong, the chances that you will chose the right one is half, i.e. one out of the two will be correct. You have 50% chances of being correct. Similarly if you toss a coin the chances that your guess will be correct is 50% (1 out of 2) i.e. 1/2. If you toss a coin the second time, the chances that you will be correct in the second toss is again 50% i.e. half. But the chances that you will be correct in both the tosses is half multiplied by half (1/2 x 1/2) which is equal to 1/4 i.e. 50% of 50% which is equal to 25%. If you toss a coin the third time, chances that you will be correct all three times is (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2) that is 1/8 or 50% of 50% of 50% that is 12"%.

A dice has got six sides. If you throw a dice and guess any number between 1 to 6, the chances that your guess will be correct is 1/6. If you throw the dice the second time, the chances that your guess will be correct in both the throws is (1/6 x 1/6) which is equal to 1/36. If you throw the dice the third time, the chances that all your three guesses are correct is (1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6) is equal to 1/216 that is less than 0.5 %.

Let us apply this theory of probability to the Qur"an, and assume that a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the Qur"an which was unknown at that time. Let us discuss the probability of all the guesses being simultaneously correct.

At the time when the Qur"an was revealed, people thought the world was flat, there are several other options for the shape of the earth. It could be triangular, it could be quadrangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, spherical, etc. Lets assume there are about 30 different options for the shape of the earth. The Qur"an rightly says it is spherical, if it was a guess the chances of the guess being correct is 1/30.
Posted by thetruthwillout 3 years ago
The methods of proving the existence of God with usage of the material provided in the "Concept of God in Islam" to an atheist may satisfy some but not all.

Many atheists demand a scientific proof for the existence of God. I agree that today is the age of science and technology. Let us use scientific knowledge to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. to prove the existence of God and simultaneously prove that the Qur"an is a revelation of God.

If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, "the creator of that object." Some may say "the producer" while others may say "the manufacturer." What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don"t grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be same, therefore accept it.

Posted by thetruthwillout 3 years ago

My first question to the atheist will be: "What is the definition of God?" For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that "this is a pen", for the opposite person to say, "it is not a pen", he should know what is the definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an atheist to say "there is no God", he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives. The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities - therefore he does not believe in such a god. Similarly a Muslim too does not and should not believe in such false gods.

If a non-Muslim believes that Islam is a merciless religion with something to do with terrorism; a religion which does not give rights to women; a religion which contradicts science; in his limited sense that non-Muslim is correct to reject such Islam. The problem is he has a wrong picture of Islam. Even I reject such a false picture of Islam, but at the same time, it becomes my duty as a Muslim to present the correct picture of Islam to that non-Muslim i.e. Islam is a merciful religion, it gives equal rights to the women, it is not incompatible with logic, reason and science; if I present the correct facts about Islam, that non-Muslim may Inshallah accept Islam.

Similarly the atheist rejects the false gods and the duty of every Muslim is to present the correct concept of God which he shall Insha Allah not refuse.

(You may refer to my article, "Concept of God in Islam", for more details)


The methods of proving the existence of God with usage of the material provided in the "Concept of God in Islam" to an atheist may satisfy some but not all.

Many atheists demand a scie
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 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 

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