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

God is not 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: 11/3/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 663 times Debate No: 81994
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




Hello, Thanks for joining. I believe that the thought of god is flawed. Nothing can just "Poof" into existence. And I believe that science trumps the word of god. I will wait for my contender to post their argument.


I'm going to try to explain as best I can how God did not "poof" into existence.

God is eternal, meaning he exists outside of our boundaries of time and space. He cannot be within our boundaries of time and space, because if you make the universe eternal, you get the problem of infinite regression. However, the universe had a starting point. God is on a plane of existence not defined by science.

In fact, science was created by God and given to humans as something to explore and use to our advantage.

I'm just going to provide the Kalam Cosmological Argument as my solidified proof of God.

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
(5) God exists.

Premise 4 is the big one that needs to be decided.

Why does it have to be God? Well, it's not completely necessary, but in order to negate the debate, I at least need to cast doubt on the statement "God does not exist" in order to keep it from being affirmed.

Now, the beginning of the universe in the scientific community is determined by theoretical physics. Theoretical physics can try to determine causes or reasons for natural phenomena, but it cannot prove anything.

So essentially, God and theoretical physics have equal ground in the realm of proof.

Because of this, the resolution cannot be affirmed because my opponent's BoP is not fulfilled.

Debate Round No. 1


Yes, I cannot win this debate. No one can prove of anything as scientists mainly use theories. But the theory of the universe is backed up with so much scientific reasoning its hard not to believe it. There is as much evidence of god as there is santa clause. None. Thousands and thousands of documents and papers have been written about the universe's life and about out own planetary system a well.

1. The first bible was written by the greeks to fill in for things they didn't understand. For example: Poseidon, god of the sea. When he got made a caused many waves to crash over the land. This is a tsunami. A tsunami is a natural disaster caused by the movement of tectonic plates.

2. The "devil" was mentioned as the man of hell, and the same as poseidon, he wrecked havoc on the world.

Thank you for joining.


Well my opponent essentially conceded the debate.

However, I'll just keep the discussion going, because why not?

1) Responding to the claim that God doesn't have any supporting evidence. Most of the evidence for God is philosophical or based on mathematical conjecture (argument from complexity). However, the arguments in themselves are fairly convincing.

Plus, the documentation in the Bible is some of the most historically accurate information about ancient times. The only parts that aren't agreed upon are the parts that mention God's intervention.

According to the Smithsonian Institution,

"Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories.

"These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archaeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated."

So whether you believe in God or not, a lot of the Bible is fairly accurate. You can tell authors paid attention to detail when they started out certain verses. For example, Nehemiah 1:1 says, "The words of Nehemiah son of Hakaliah: In the month of Kislev in the twelfth year, while I was in the citadel of Susa." So it's a documentation of when this verse was written.

The Bible also references other historical sources to compare it too in several verses (very heavily used in 2 Kings).

My point here is that because the Bible is taken seriously as a historical document, it puts a lot more weight on the fact that The Bible isn't just a book full of magic and religious ramblings about God. The people who wrote the Bible were fairly accurate, and most of them were historians to some degree.

2) This is actually my opponent's first numbered point.

The Hebrew Bible was written before the Greeks wrote their Bible, and it wasn't to explain natural phenomena. The Bible was written for several reasons. It was written as a historical document (as mentioned above), it contained books of laws (parts of Exodus and Numbers plus all of Leviticus), and it even included ancient versions of accounting balance sheets (the first part of Numbers).

The Greeks did use mythology to explain natural phenomena, but the only example of that in the Bible is the creation of the world.

3) The devil is actually a fallen angel who has not made it to Hell yet. However, I understand the common misconception. The idea of Satan has been misconstrued to a great degree.

Satan's purpose is to provide the possibility of free will to humans. Humans would not have free will without him, because we would only know God. Because God is a God of love, he needs free will to exist in order for his creation to reciprocate love by choosing him over the opposite option.

I hope I cleared some issues up.
Debate Round No. 2


govitz147 forfeited this round.


Thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
There's no need to argue with Vi. He believes he's always right, and if you disagree with him, I'm sure he has an unrelated analogy about a spider to refute your point.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 3 years ago
*sigh* believing is not stupidity, and neither is not believing. "Stupidity" is saying something you know is false. (Example: Me saying "my profile is a walrus" is false, and stupid.)
Posted by Spartinman60 3 years ago
belief does not equal stupidity, refusing to believe or stop believing based on nothing or just theories, that is stupidity.
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Vi_Spex = stupidity
Posted by vi_spex 3 years ago
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Hey Vi, I thought we had a deal. I don't go around spreading intelligence on your debates, and you don't come spewing stupidity on mine.
Posted by vi_spex 3 years ago
natural=not supernatural
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Thanks Doctor.

I didn't think the first comment on this debate would be so positive. I thought it'd be more like "Jonbonbon looks like she shat out an argument while half brain dead just in a sad attempt to noob snipe."

Which is actually a true statement XD
Posted by Dr.1up 3 years ago
Jonbonbon can't loose this debate. Even if you can explain how something could happen naturally, that doesn't mean that it didn't happen supernaturally. Thus, you can't prove that God does or doesn't exist. Because govitz147 is the only person who needs to prove anything in this debate, he/she can't win.
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 Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round, so conduct to Con.