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

God IS real

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: 1/12/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,907 times Debate No: 84910
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (33)
Votes (1)




I know God is real because he answers my prayers.


In order to gain the necessary three debates for voting privileges, I will be engaging in this debate. However, before I start, I would like to note that I will be arguing a philosophical stance, contrary to my own personal beliefs. As I will quite literally be arguing against my own, personal beliefs (I do identify as Christian), please forgive me if my arguments may not seem entirely... Substantial at times. For the sake of broadening my viewpoints, I believe it best that I argue a contradicting stance for once.

I would like to also note that I will not be arguing the validity of any religion's Holy texts, rather, I will strictly define my argument to notable laws of science, philosophy, and lack of representation. I wish my opponent the best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1




Well, it seems as though my opponent has forfeited valuable space for information. Nevertheless, I shall state mine.

To begin with, I would like to examine the premise of most secular claims to "origin" of reality, or space-time more specifically. Most notable as "The Big Bang Theory", this theory has two propositions among people:
1. It accounts for strictly the creation of the physical universe (e.g. mass).
2. It does actually account for the creation of the spatial universe (e.g. space, time, and dimension as a general concept).
The one I shall be addressing is the latter, the prediction that the physical 'expansion' of space accounts for the theory of the actual space, and time, alike.

Now, one might question the validity of the prediction that "space" is a physical entity, prone to manipulation of any source, or essentially "bends" or "twists". However, very concepts of movement via velocity, and the spherical bend in space via gravity, state otherwise. In fact, a project performed through Stanford University and NASA (a mutual sponsorship of the project) released "Gravity Probe B" ( in April of 2004. This gravity probe utilized several gyroscopes, spinning in a constant velocity until the minuscule distortion of space, caused by the twist in earth's angular velocity in relation to its bulging mass, caused by the slight compression towards the equator of the earth. What this experiment proved was the 'physical qualifications' of recognizing space as a legitimate entity, and not merely a concept. Similar theories have been presented concerning the matter, however, these tend to revolve around the affects of space and velocity in direct comparison to time. These concepts are known as "time dilation" and "gravitational time dilation" ( I shall refer back to the general term of time dilation. The concept behind this phenomenon is, 'with an increasing velocity in space, one experiences a decreasing velocity in time". Part of this theory can be attributed to the idea that, due to the immense force produced by the Big Bang, the universe as a whole expands at the equivalent to light-speed. The smaller terms of time-dilation are already observable in relation between earth's surface and orbit, where clocks set in orbit will progress slightly slower than those on earth; this is due to the increasing velocity in orbit, as well as the decrease of overall mass present (e.g. gravity). Of course, gravity is still quite prevalent in orbit, but the -immediate- mass is not as close as the surface.

Now take this theory back to the Big Bang- Assuming that space is expanding in the manner, as it so claims, and in relation to hypothesis two, which I mentioned earlier, this would imply region outside of space. However, this could not exist as a mere "nothingness", as the theory of purely 'nothing' would sustain a concept of instability, or rather lack-of. Because nothingness is quite literally made up of nothing, and because space -is- something, it would be about the equivalent of building a tower in midair, without a ground to support it. In the same way the building would crumble, space itself would crumble without a proper, fundamental foundation. Now while I personally, as a Christian, would account to this stability as an essence of a god, the secular perspective would claim an incomprehensible reality beyond modern 'science'. Now before I explain what I mean by this, I must make something quite clear: Our modern understanding of science is built upon laws of atomic matter and space-time. Any source, outside of this proper entity, may prove to contain dimensions and laws strictly different from our own. The idea that I am getting at is that, while our modern perception of laws of science may state that the creation of "something" cannot come from nothing, in a reality/dimension void of space and time, which merely serves as a foundation, this law may not actually be present, and creation of something, may be -able- to originate from the "closest thing" to nothing, since I have hypothesized that there is no "nothingness" present. Based on this logic, a self-creating universe could be possible.

Now there is also the fact that, under human ideals, atheists -do- have one advantage, according to our own standards. This advantage is "innocent until proven guilty", and while this might apply to both sides of the argument in a sense, proving a positive is typically far more advocated than proving the negative. Meaning, the burden of proof lies on the accuser. Of course, same could be said for my statement of the "foundation" of space, but ultimately this would lead to a stalemate, as neither side could properly provide the evidence of their own.

Now what I did notice from your first statement was a use of ethos. Which while I do appreciate a nice, honest use of ethos in a debate, alone, it is not a substantial form of evidence. Your claim "because he answers my prayers" requires a number of assumptions:
1. It is not a miscorrelation. An "answered prayer" can quite frankly be explained away by even mere coincidence.
2. Your statement is truthful. Whether this implies deception to the audience, or even deception to yourself.
There is not enough substantial evidence to rely on this as the sole argument alone; however, I do believe you will provide a statement next round- and I surely hope.

This concludes my arguments for this particular round. I apologize if they were not as well-rounded as some might have hoped, but again, as they contradict my fundamental beliefs, I am simply looking for loopholes in my own philosophies. I look forward to my opponent's arguments, and thus, I shall state my remaining propositions, rebuttals, and closing statement in the final round, since no boundaries were set for this debate. Best of luck, instigator.
Debate Round No. 2


I sent this to one of my friends:
He hears you. He would not have made you if he would not help you. He loves you and hears you whenever you pray. He already knows what your life is going to look like, so when you pray for something, it may seem like He's not listening, but he is.
He threw out one of his angels because it wasn't acting nice. He flooded and killed the world because everyone was acting the way they are now. He was sad that he made those people and they took advantage of the world and ruined it. Our world is turning into a modern Sodom and Gomorrah. Some day, God will come back to Earth and take his followers up to heaven with him. But if you go along with the world and do those things that are wrong, you will not go to heaven.

Heaven is a magical place. When you enter those beautiful gates, you will wear a crown and robe and walk the streets of pure gold. Wherever you want to go does not exist.


I mentioned before. While ethos may prove as supporting evidence, as the only source of evidence alone, it is not substantial. And aside from that, you have quite literally supported none of your claims with any forms of evidence. If we are debating 'the existence of God', then the contender is supposed to assume that 'God is not real'. To the contender, who would not believe in the existence of a God to being with, your statements, without empirical evidence to support them, are quite irrelevant.

Not exactly sure how I would be "taking advantage" of the world, considering the fact that this debate was purely for the sake of practice and to gain the privilege to vote on other debates. And quite frankly, where I "want to go" after I die, is also heaven. I mentioned before, I am a Christian adopting an atheist position for the sake of this debate alone; this debate is by no means personalized. However, you have not presented an honest "argument" of your own. I would also appreciate if the voters would take this into consideration.

The debate was appreciated, Glitter. However, I believe my statements speak for themselves. I might add a word of advice; not criticism, but just a favor. Do not fear skepticism- even against yourself. An honest answer will evolve in time, but never limit yourself by the opinions of peers or for the 'sanctity' of the crowds.
Debate Round No. 3
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Glitter2998 2 years ago
Could you nerds take your conversation to a PM, please? I'd really appreciate it. Thank you so much!
Posted by snkcake666 2 years ago
No more bias than is naturally inherent in any person. I doubt your choice on the premise of interpretation, not on the standardization- or rather, the proportion in regard to interpretation to the standardization. And while this proportion is rather ill-balanced in this case, it was not a claim of tyranny; it was an observation of the most extreme cases.

I appreciate the link to the guidelines. It was not Glitter that I ever suspected, however.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
If either of the previous 2 votes had been posted with just conduct, they would have remained up. But they weren't and the explanation under arguments was well below what's deemed reasonable under the standards. Now, if you don't like the standards, feel free to post your views in the forums and start a discussion. Many have before, and you could certainly add substantively to that discussion. But complaining about the fact that the standards exist and are applied here will do you no good. They are the standards, they have been in place for quite a while, and they have been applied to votes on your debate just as they have to others.

So don't talk to me about exploitation. It's a basic standard, it will be applied everywhere. Whether you find zero tolerance to be intolerable is really your choice, but it doesn't change the realities of the system. Again, go ahead and fight that battle in the forums. Frankly, I find the prospect of arbitrarily deciding which debates are covered by the standards and which aren't to be a far worse one, but that's your choice. Call me a biased tyrant while you're at it, though I don't see either of those terms as warranted.

And since you requested them, here they are:
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
No, it doesn't strike me as coincidence, just as it doesn't strike me as coincidental that they just happened to vote for you. You're the clear winner of this debate, and if any of these votes actually reflected that AND met the standards, they wouldn't have been removed. It matters very little who's doing the reporting (though, for the record, these reports came from 2 different individuals, neither of them Glitter) because their insufficiency remains whether or not they were reported. If you want, I can skim over this debate and produce a vote for you that would meet the standards. It wouldn't take much of my time.

I review all reports given in a 24 hour period on a nightly basis. It takes hours of my time, hours that I could be spending enjoying myself through other pursuits. I am the sole moderator who takes a look at every single vote reported, makes a determination, sends that determination to Airmax, has it assessed, and posts the results of that assessment on the debates. That's all me, whether I'm working or on vacation. I specifically make this effort, in tandem with Airmax and Blade-of-Truth, because we recognize a need to improve the quality of votes on the site. Whether you agree with that need is beside the point - I'm not specifically watching your debate or anyone else's. To do so would further drain my very limited time.
Posted by snkcake666 2 years ago
But what I forgot to mention last- Bias can evolve from more than distinct beliefs of their owns. It can manifest from a mindset, or even societies for that matter. That "zero-tolerance" is quite literally a mindset of its own.
Posted by snkcake666 2 years ago

But what any single person must realize among any debating community is the concept of proportion. And while proportion may not always be morally prominent, it is a must-figure in dealing with opinion. When one can understand an appropriate proportion between self-expression and the guidelines set by a particular standards- this is where one must learn to address.

"Zero-tolerance" is quite foolish when thought through properly.
Posted by snkcake666 2 years ago
Whiteflame, does it not strike you as more than mere coincidence that three votes have already been rejected? While I understand this topic of debate in general tends to receive more bias voting of its own, I sincerely doubt three varying individuals would report three varying arguments. The most probable explanation is a follower of this particular thread.

Now I doubt that Glitter would necessarily be the one to submit these reports, since honestly she appears to me as no more than a troll (considering her statements and profile). Not to immediately dismiss her as one, but considering her general complexion, I have reason to suspect. And do not get me wrong, either- I am not accusing you of the allegations. But- it seems that you have been notably heeding the reporter, whether it be your own proclamations or those of another. This either means a significantly low proportion of reports on a regular basis, a surplus in your time (or number of moderators), and/or an attentiveness on your part. And honestly, I am surprise it was the same moderator each time, meaning that obviously you are not on much of a "surplus" in moderators.

And I believe you misread my argument; I was hinting at the tendency for people to not comply to each and every petty instance of a regulation. Regardless of how little power you maintain, you are seemingly resourceful in terms of its exploitation. Requiring absolute obedience to a mindset, whether it be minor rules and regulations, comes at the expense of overwhelming bias and even in the most extreme of cases, tyranny. Even the slightest of powers can be abused to unprecedented means.

I would appreciate a link to the standards for referencing notice, but let me explain how a bias might be most prominent: In absolution. Of course, letting notable, major flaws slip by unnoticed would be rather foolish, but you treat this as a "zero-tolerance" policy. Even the slightest of slip-ups, you are bound to strike down upon.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
There's something wrong with the votes you're receiving, that's for sure. The insinuation that this is something wrong with my moderation, however, is something with which I take issue. My power is limited on the site, whether you believe it or not. I have no power to remove any vote without the say so of Airmax.

I think you've misread the reasons for removal. I said that the statement "...whatever" CAN be treated as a forfeit. Both votes were removed on the basis of the lack of explanation with regards to the arguments points.

As for your view that I'm biased, I don't see where that's coming through. I've applied these standards for argument points the same way across more debates than I can count. If you'd like to see the standards, I can give you links that explain them. I don't know what else you'd like me to substantiate.
Posted by snkcake666 2 years ago
Whiteflame, I believe we can both conclude that there is something wrong with this picture here- whether you admit to it or not. You initially claimed that your power is rather limited as a moderator, but you seem to inclined to abuse it regardless.

Quite frankly, people will present honest opinions; whether they can substantiate those opinions may be determined by one's experience in writing. However, a simple lack of proper interpretation between man to man is hardly an excuse to forfeit their opinions of their own; it seems almost ironic in that sense, assuming you would so claim that a statement cannot be treated as a forfeit. While I agree that certain parameters must be met for a structured debate, any sensible individual would acknowledge that not all elements fit the same mold; it would be foolish to lash upon the slightest of dissidence.

I believe I was well correct to doubt your judgement. Might that be the slightest sense of bias? Deny it all you please, but unless you can substantiate your claims, my skepticism shall remain.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: sunnyau// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Yes,I'm a Christian,but I'll not votebomb anyway... RFD: Conduct:Pro FFed 1 turn by ...whatever and Con posted all 3 rounds.So goes to Con.Also, Pro seems to personally attack Con in the 3rd round, so this goes to Con. Arguments:Con have had a full standing argument while Pro even didn't attack his by a bit.So goes to Con.

[*Reason for removal] While it's reasonable to treat a statement like that as a forfeit and a conduct violation, the voter does have to explain arguments. This RFD only states that Con has a full standing argument while Pro didn't attack it. While dropping points can be deadly, the voter does have to point to the arguments given and explain why those drops were important.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never meets her BoP. Her case focused entirely on an unsubstantiated claim that God answers prayers, which did nothing to counter the logic I'm getting from Con about the potential for other means for universal creation. Con's also right that Pro's entire case is ethos, resulting in a threadbare argument that never has any real heft for her side. It may be possible that all the things she said were true, but that requires more than just unwarranted claims. While Con's case and focus on alternative means for universal creation may be responsive to an argument that Pro never gives, his responses to Pro's case are sufficient reason to negate based on BoP alone and so that's what I do.