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

God is real

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: 3/17/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 824 times Debate No: 71886
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Hello. I saw your other religion debate and I challenge you to this debate. I have never debated on this particular topic so this should be interesting. We'll equally share the BOP. We can provide scientific arguments for or against God, but I am not required to find scientific evidence for God because none exists, nor are you required to find scientific evidence against God because again, none exists.

Rules: Round 1- Acceptance. Round 2- Opening arguments. Round 3- Rebuttals. Round 4- Rebuttals, voters and conclusion.

Forfeiture results in immediate loss of conduct points unless clarified beforehand. Try to use proper spelling and grammar, but occasional errors are okay. Use a source or two, but you don't have to for each round. It's a religion debate.

I look forward to the debate.


Yes I accept your debate and it's rules. Please start with your opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for accepting the debate.

I'm going to clarify something before I begin. I believe God is a reality, not a certainty or a fact. That's why it's called faith. I believe in God. I wouldn't say I believe in science, because I know it's true. So if you want to try to use the assumption that believers must prove God is a fact, I would say that's a complete fallacy.

Contention 1: Creation indicates a God.

For a long time in history, there was an assumption that the universe always existed, and that would seem to support atheism, but today, most religions and science agree that the universe in fact had a beginning. Science calls it the Big Bang. One of the scientists that frequently studies the Big Bang is Stephen Hawking. Hawking has said before that the laws of physics say that matter cannot be created or destroyed. In other words, something else would've had to exist in order to get a universe. Stephen Hawking tried to solve this without turning to God by creating a theory based on quantum fluctuations and in order for his theory to be true, something called imaginary time would have to exist. There's no such thing as imaginary time. So even someone as smart as Stephen Hawking can't come up with a way that to explain the Big Bang without God.

Contention 2: The universe is fine tuned.

The fine tuning argument or the intelligent design argument has put modern atheism completely on the defensive side, all thanks to science. As we all know, there are things in our universe that are universal. Such as the speed of light, which is the same everywhere in the universe. That's just one example by the way. Some scienfists have suggested that if that speed of light or other universal settings were different by much less than a percent, the universe would not exist. As we all know, nature is not constant. Look at the rapid changes of mountain formations, or the rapid climate change that has been going on for millions of years. The point here is that in order for the universe to exist, there has to be something holding things like the speed of light to a constant. And my question to you is, if it's not God, what is it?

Contention 3: The moral argument.

As human beings, we have a certain set of moral values. They vary of course, but they're not too far off. In some places the death penalty offense varies, but we all seem to agree that death itself is bad, therefore killing people is bad. Because we have a pretty close moral standard, it is likely that all of that has one authority commanding it. Can a universal moral standard come naturally? Probably not. So it's likely that there is a supreme being commanding our morals.

I'm excited to see what kind of direction this debate goes to and good luck.


I agree that science has failed to explain the creation of the universe. But this does not mean that there is no scientific explanation. Perhaps the human race has not mastered the technology or math needed to calculate and discover the answer behind this question. Take the examples of comets. The first humans relied on the sky to tell them the time and seasons and thus they thought that the world was the work of a master clock maker. If something strange is happening in the sky eg. a comet, it must be a sign from the God(s) signalling an important event. They had no other explanations and not enough knowledge to understand it. We now understand that comets are huge chunks of ice that have been drawn by the Sun's gravitaonal pull. This is what you are doing. You are making assumptions based on a limited amount of knowledge. Just because we don't know does not mean there is no answer.

I have to correct your second statement in which you say light travels at the same speed everywhere. A black hole has enough gravitational power to pull light from its path. Rapid changes in the enviroment around us could be scientifically explained eg. global warming, mountain formation.

For your third argument, I have to point out that we set our own moral standards. We human decide for ourselves which rules we live by. You might have 10 commandments but they don't cover everything do they?

Debate Round No. 2


Since you didn't make your own case, I'll just go on to attack your arguments against my case.

You attacked my first contention by saying that humans have it figured out the scientific explanation of how the universe came to be. That's true, but it doesn't mean they haven't tried. You built up this case like we've been turning to religion forever to get the answers, when in fact scientists like Stephen Hawking have determined that you really need to have a God in order to have a beginning of the universe. Humans have not developed the skills to find the answer yet? Are you kidding? Hawking's theory was based on quantum fluctuations, one of the most complicated concepts in science. And where did his answer take him? Nowhere. He basically has conceded his theory and stated that there is a creator.

You attacked my second contention by saying that the speed of light changes in a black hole. I think you missed the whole point of the contention. The point is that there are values in our universe that never change in certain places, and are fine tuned to stay that way for billions of years. And as we all know, nature is not fine tuned, so without a God, how can we have values that are the same across the universe?

For my third contention, you stated that humans make their own morality. Ok, but if that were true wouldn't there be a drastically different moral standard across the world. Again, all cultures try not to die because we believe death is bad. The point is that there is a reason that our moral standards are pretty similar. It's because there is a great being commanding it.

If you want to make your own case, that'd be great so that the voters can get a better idea of the reasons you don't believe in God. Good luck.


I am sorry for forgetting the layout and guidelines of the debate so please forgive me.

So first of all my case:

Lack of Scientific Proof

Is there any fully reliable historical and/or scientific proof that God has ever existed? At this point, most people direct me to the Bible a two thousand year old book based on letters sent by people you don't know. Is this dependable? No. In order for me to believe in the existence of God, I require solid scientific proof that can be relied on. If there are any that I do not know about, please feel free to bring them forward and educate me.

The Bible is Pretty Violent

Sure enough the Bible teaches loving and caring for each other most of the time. But have you considered the verses that would today be considered cruel? In the book of Deuteronomy there is a verse which orders a man to cut of his wife's hands if she stop him from arguing with another man. The Bible also supports slavery with verses telling slaves to obey their masters.

The Problem of Evil

If God exist, then surely he would be willing to prevent evil things such as the Holocaust 9/11. I mean, according to your scriptures, God is caring and all powerful. So if he exists, why is there evil in the world?

Anyway these are my main points. Now I shall give some reasons to invalidate your rebukes.

The human race is at its greatest moment yet. Never before have we risen so high. But where shall we go if not up? Where shall we walk but forwards? The human race has always been advancing, with each generation believing that they are the greatest that will ever walk the earth. This is what you are doing, you believe that there is no space for improvement in human intelligence. Stephen Hawking is very smart and his theories are incredibly complex but that doesn't mean that he is the smartest. Do not think that this generation is the one that will discover the scientific truths of the universe.

For your second argument, I believe the universe is not perfect. It took billions of years to form our solar system after millions of failed attempts. Our planet is the result of millions of asteroids that have smashed together, forming our world. The earth we live in today can be scientifically explained.

And for your last argument on morality I am going to take your example of death. As you said people believe death is bad. But instead of forming a radical conclusion to people's view towards death, you should take on a logical side. Why do people believe death is bad? Because death means you can't see your loved ones anymore. It is an important and significant change and is a path we will all take. The only reason why people view death as bad is because they don't know what's beyond if there is anything that is.

Debate Round No. 3


Thanks for posting a case. Myself and the voters really appreciate it.

In your first contention you stated that there is no scientific evidence for God. Well first of all I'd like to say that there is also no scientific evidence against God. No one really knows what scientific values would prove God real, so you're saying you want evidence, but you don't even know what kind of evidence you're looking for. Secondly, religion is about faith, not evidence. If God's existence was a fact instead of a reality, there would be no religion. It'd just be another scientific fact. Religion is supposed to lift people up, and it requires faith in order to do so. If it's indisputable, the purpose ceases.

In your second contention you stated that the Bible is very violent. Ok, but the Bible is also allegorical. The passages that condone slavery and say that you should kill your neighbor for working on Sunday are not meant to be taken literally. Do you know any Christians who do those things? Because I don't. What about Bhuddists or Hindus? They are religions with violent stories and you don't see any violence from them. Why? Because they have the sense to not take every word of their holy books literally, just as Christians do.

In your third contention you brought up what is commonly referred to as the problem of evil. This is a common fallacy embraced by modern atheism. I believe that God could stop the holocaust and 9/11 if he wanted to. Why didn't he? Because that would interfere with religious faith. If God stopped it, then everyone would know that he exists and the concept of faith would cease to exist, thus making religion pointless. In other words, evil has to exist in order for religion to prosper. It's a sad truth that atheists have yet to realize. Atheists commonly expect believers to say that religion is perfect and has no flaws. I'm perfectly okay with saying that my religion has flaws, but it's ultimately the right path for me.

You attacked my first contention unsuccessfully yet again. You said that I think that there is no room for improvement in intelligence. Of course there is. That's what science is for, but you say that means we have to rule out God without any evidence that he doesn't exist. There is absolutely no reason to use science to rule out God, especially now whe there has been no evidence against God. And I would actually say that we can develop science to use it as a tool for understanding God, rather than mindlessly ruling him out.

I still think you're missing the point of my second contention. We live in a strange and mysteriously orderly universe and since nature is inconsistent, how can everything exist? If God didn't fine tune the universe, what did?

For my third contention, you said that the only reason why people believe death is bad is because it's different and no one really knows what's after. Death also hurts. There are many reasons why societies agree death is bad. My point is that there is a correlation between the moral views of just about every society. And what is the reason for that if there isn't a God helping us lean that way.

To the voters, you should vote for me because I have brought up more science to back up my statements, I have more successfully refuted my opponent's arguments, and we have not seen a lot of BOP delivery on my opponent's side.

I thank my opponent and the voters for this debate.


Well first of all, I would like to point out that there are scientific evidence against God. The creation story and Ptolemy's version of the universe were all endorsed by the church and it's followers. They were undisputed for hundreds of years until great minds like Darwin and Copernicus came along. In the end, it was found that the church has been delivering the false "truth" for hundreds of years! What if God's existence was also a false "truth". It's not the first time your church has been proved wrong.

Second of all, you say that religion exists only because of faith. Well personally, I find it hard to put my faith blindly into something that has no basis on realism. You just write out a holy scripture and expect everyone to believe it. Your debate is called "God is real". The word "real" is defined as "actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed". If you want me to believe in God I demand proof.

Another thing I want to point out is your explanation for the problem of evil. You are basically saying that God would let over 6 million people die just to keep up his game of charades? Now at this point you might argue that they went up to heaven or something as compensation but according to your bible only believers go up to heaven. Are you willing to say that every single one of these 6 million people were religious especially those who died in 9/11?

For your first contention I'm not saying that science has ruled out God already, I'm saying that amount of scientific evidence that supports God seems to be outweighed by the amount that doesn't support God. And didn't you say in your first paragraph that religion should not be treated as a scientific fact, so why are you saying that we could use science to understand God?

I fully understand your second point but the fact is the universe is not orderly. The only reason we exist today is because of our ability to adapt to changes such as the changing of habitat. The universe is a chaotic place and we are extremely lucky not to be in the right center of the chaos.

For your third and last contention, I say that the only reason why there is a correlation between the moral views of society is because each society faces the same problems, cycles and events. In every society we have people that kill, steal, lie, cheat or give, love, help and care. It is these events that shape society gradually into what we have today. And furthermore I'd like to point out hat not every society had the same moral views. Ever heard of human sacrifices?

Voters, I personally think that my opponent's scientific backup is faulty and unreliable. Nevertheless, I would like to thank him for challenging me to this wholesome debate.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
RFD (Pt. 1):

Neither case was particularly good here, guys. They both function off of numerous assumptions that aren't necessarily relevant to the debate, and they're both completely lacking in evidence. It's really problematic, to me, to see a debate where scientific evidence is deemed so important, and yet anything that is presented comes entirely in the form of assertion with limited warrants. I thought that was a simple thing for Con to exploit, but he doesn't use it.

Nonetheless, this would probably have been an easy Con win if he had spent any time on burdens analysis. Failing that, I'm forced to accept Pro's statement of BOP: that it's shared equally. Thus, while Pro is arguing for the existence of a deity and Con is not, if Pro gets any proof through that shows such a deity is more likely than not, then that's sufficient to win his case.

Most of his contentions fail in that task. The "Creation indicates a God" contention is actually rather weak, as the point appears to be that the lack of scientific evidence should lead us to side with faith. Negative evidence doesn't mean that the only possibility becomes God. This isn't proof for Pro's position.

Neither is "The moral argument." As Con points out, as long as there's a basic utility advantage for preferring a society that is against death, it's not morality by itself that's deciding this view of death. Maybe there is some underpinning morality here, but even if there is, I'm not sure why God would necessarily have to be the entity behind that. Human societies have existed for quite some time, why couldn't our basic morality be shaped by shared experiences over that time? Why must it necessarily come from God? It's unclear.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
(Pt. 2)

"The universe is fine tuned", however, stands as a problem for Con to the end. Pro reveals the reality that light speed is consistent and that that speed is necessary to keep everything spinning. Con doesn't do much to contest this, and really doesn't attack the basic underpinnings of Pro's argument. Even if the rest of the universe is entirely chaotic, as he's asserting, it doesn't change the reality that this is fine-tuned. I'd argue that God is unnecessary for that fine-tuning, but Con doesn't give me that argument. So I can't do that. Contention 2 stands.

As for Con's contentions, they all run into the same basic problems

For "Lack of Scientific Proof", it assumes a very different BOP. Con, you really needed to present a reason why scientific proof is necessary for Pro to win this debate.

For "The Bible is Pretty Violent" and "The Problem of Evil", the basic problem is the same. There's no reason given for why the Bible must be correct for any God to exist. Pro sort of implicitly argues that the Christian God must exist, but it's never explicitly stated that that God is the only God that would satisfy the resolution. If it's not, then the Bible is irrelevant. If that God is also not omnibenevolent, the Problem of Evil doens't present as a concern. Pro's responses to these points make me waver, mainly because he's lending them credence I wouldn't have lent to them.

So, fundamentally, I'm trying to discern if any God is real. Pro inadvertently gives his opponent's arguments some strength, but based on the burdens set out at the start of the debate, and without explicit changes to them, that strength ends up being minimal. The fine-tuning argument, however, seems to stand strong enough, which leads me to vote Pro.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.