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

God's 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: 1/1/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 691 times Debate No: 106286
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)




I am holding the null hypothesis of there being no existence of God. Opponent goes first as they have to burden of proof.

I tried this once before, but I forgot about it, and the debate died. I won't let that happen again.



Actually, you have the burden of proof, my friend.

I will be conducting my arguments soon, since we have another four rounds. This simply served as my introduction statement.

I will be writing from an Orthodox Jewish perspective.

Good luck,

Debate Round No. 1


Ah, try to start off with a logical fallacy. I've made no claim about reality, I've just rejected a posit, of which I have not be convinced into believing.


You aren't taking this seriously, aren't you?

What if you start first, and then let me pick it apart? Hint: I'll be easier for me!
Debate Round No. 2


Stop trying to shift the burden of proof. I've made no claim about reality, therefor have no burden of proof.

(I'd recommend you learn how to use logic and reason before trying to debate people)


You're the one who purposed this argument in the first place. Your burden of proof is disproving G-d (as in a general sense).

Nice comment at the end. I can apply that to you too, you know.

You haven't shown me one shred of evidence so far disproving G-d (since I'm Jewish, try that G-d). Please do so, then we can move on here.
Debate Round No. 3


Stop trying to shift the burden of proof. Take your sophistry to someone as ignorant as you about logic. I am holding a null-hypothesis. You're a troll though, not worth my time.


We all know who's the troll around here.

I surmised you'd offer some good arguments for this debate, but appears not. Oh well, your loss, readers just won't get the power of atheism, that's all.

Just like your last debate, nothing happened. Perhaps next time you should try offering at least one argument so someone could actually respond?

Here's my one argument, which you may as well try to refute:

Explain to me how a random explosion, mindless in all its glory, could cause life to form from nowhere? Then explain to me why there's no G-d when our universe's design is supreme and amazing?

Perhaps there's still hope for this debate after all, you answer these claims, and we'll go from there.
Debate Round No. 4


"Explain to me how a random explosion, mindless in all its glory, could cause life to form from nowhere? Then explain to me why there's no G-d when our universe's design is supreme and amazing?" - So, your argument seems to go as follows, correct me if I am wrong:

P1: The universe is too complex to have been formed randomly ("Explain to me how a random explosion, mindless in all its glory, could cause life to form from nowhere?")
P2: The universe in its complexity could have been formed by God
C : Therefor the universe was created by God ("Then explain to me why there's no G-d when our universe's design is supreme and amazing?")

If we take for granted that all the premises above are true this follows; God is complex, therefor God requires a creator as well, and of course, God's God requires a creator. This obviously lends to an infinite regress, wherein our universe can only exist at the end. Our universe exists, therefor something complex can arise from nothing/chance. Thereby the premises of your argument must be false.

We spent the first four rounds fighting over who has the burden of proof, so after your response, shall we start another 5 round debate?


Yes, I am willing to debate this further for another 5.

I've seen your argument before - it falls flat. Who created G-d, you ask?

Well, no one - if someone created Him, then we'd rightfully not call Him G-d!

Have you ever read Genesis 1:1? Tell me, is there a co-creator involved? Perhaps a creator before G-d, or anything else?

None of the sort. G-d is the ONLY creator.

"You alone are the L-RD; You made the heavens, the heavens of the heavens and all their host, the earth and all that is upon it, the seas and all that is in them, and You give life to them all, and the heavenly host bow down before You." (Nehemiah 9:6)

"'To whom will then you liken Me, that I should be his equal?' says the Holy One." (Isaiah 40:25)

"I am the L-RD, that is My name, and My glory will I not give to another. Neither My praise to graven images!" (42:8)

"This is what the L-RD says, Israel"s King and Redeemer, the L-RD Almighty, 'I am the first and I am the last; apart from Me there is no G-d! Who then is like Me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before Me. . . Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are My witnesses. Is there any G-d besides Me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.'" (44:6-8)

"So said the L-RD, your Redeemer, the One who formed you from the womb, 'I am the L-RD Who makes everything, Who stretched forth the heavens alone, Who spread out the earth by Myself.'" (44:24)

"I am the L-RD, and there is no other; besides Me there is no G-d. . . I will strengthen you. . . I order that they know from the shining of the sun and from the west that there is no one besides Me; I am the L-RD and there is no other!" (45:5-6)

". . . who announced this before, who declared it from the distant past? Is it not I, the L-RD, and there is no G-d apart from Me, a righteous G-d and Savior; there is none but Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am G-d, and there is no other!" (45:21-22)

Why can't you people get this through your head? G-d is the sole creator, there is no other!

Yes, G-d can be complex, why not, He's the creator after all!
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by asta 2 years ago
The bible contradicts it's self.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
>Reported vote: Flatstanley// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (S&G, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: M yes yes

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD.
Posted by eliasisameme 3 years ago
Con spent far too long making arguments against the flow instead of putting forth true arguments. If you believe debate is going unwell, say so but don't fight against it. The judges will decide whether it was abusive or not, and if so you will gain more points than lost. Additionally, Pro was correct about the flow. Next time, leave it be.
Posted by buildingapologetics 3 years ago
@DrAnomaly Based on the way the debate was framed, @judaism is correct.
"I am holding the null hypothesis of there being no existence of God. Opponent goes first as they have to burden of proof."
The null hypothesis is not that God does not exist; it is that we don't know whether God exists. Since you appear to make the claim that God does not exist, you have a burden of proof. Of course, @judaism has the task of supporting the opposite, but you do have a burden of proof.

Also @backwardseden, atheism does not mean doubting the existence of God. Atheism doesn't even include all who don't believe in God. Agnosticism is not knowing whether God exists, which has no burden of proof. Atheists are those who make the positive claim that God does not exist, thus they have a burden of proof. If you wish to change these classic definitions, please explain why that should be done. In fact, you would be losing information in the process by making the term atheism less specific.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
@DrAnomaly - Um no you haven't heard anywhere close to everything in the projectile cannon of the atheists. Don't try to pretend you do. Atheism is truth because god is not. After all if you have the slightest nth of a degree of doubt in your belief in god, then you ARE an atheist. AND everybody, no exceptions, none, is born an atheist. Theists will never be able to present their burden of proof unless their god provides it. And you are correct, it is always up to theists to provide that burden of proof. No exceptions. None.
Posted by DrAnomaly 3 years ago
I'm too lazy to read it, because I've already heard it. Also, I don't have my allegiance to atheism, only truth. However the theists have not met their burden of proof yet, so I am currently an atheist.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
@DrAnomaly - If you wanna an actual debate, you gotta be able to be able to debate with the big boys. Matt + a host of others are the big boys. And they know what they are talking about. And they help our cases A LOT by being truthful and real in which religion and god and jesus and the bible are not.
Posted by DrAnomaly 3 years ago
I'm way to damn lazy to read all that, but Matt Dillahunty is funny guy
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
"This is not just a matter of opinion. This is an entire branch of philosophy of epistemology about how we go about determining whether or not a ---claim--- is reasonably and rationally justified. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that there is a god is an extraordinary claim which requires more than just pointing to an old book. That is simply NOT rational to the claim. Sorry. Its not just an opinion. There"s more to life than that." Matt Dillahunty

"Why would you believe anything on faith? Faith isn"t a pathway to truth. Every religion has some sort of faith. If faith is your pathway you can"t distinguish between christianity, Hinduism, judaism, any of these others. How is it that you use ---reason--- in every of the other endeavor in your life and then when it comes to the ultimate truth, the most important truth your"re saying that faith is required and how is that supposed to reflect on a god? What kind of a god requires faith instead of evidence?" Matt Dillahunty

"Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong." Richard Dawkins

"I could be wrong and tomorrow I could find out that there is a god. And that I do have a soul. It wouldn't change much for me as to how I live my life. Because I"ve already come to good reasons to do things. I"m open to being corrected on them. But what"s going to correct me is reason and evidence. Not appealing to a god. And people ask me "well what are you going to do if you die and you stand up before god" (hands in the air) hey I tried. I used my brain. I followed the evidence where it was" and by the way if your character is actually depicted in the bible or the koran I don"t want to have nothing to do with you. I"m already morally superior to you. I already care more about people than you do. I know. I never sanctioned slavery. Never sanctioned genocide. (beat) gods have." Matt Dillahunty
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
Matt Dillahunty "The question is ill formed. The question is "what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true"? Atheism is the position of NOT accepting the theological explanation. It is NOT accepting the god hypothesis. It is in fact the null hypothesis. It cannot be proven to be true. It is the default position. And christianity and Buddhism and Hinduism and Islam they have all failed to meet their burden of proof. Its not up to me to prove they are any gods anymore than it is up to me to prove that that there isn"t bigfoot or fairies or UFO"s. The default position, the null hypothesis is that these things aren"t true. And we wait and we reserve belief until they are demonstrated to be true. Does that make sense?
Caller "Does that mean atheism is not a worldview?"
Matt " That"s correct. Atheism isn"t a worldview. It doesn't have any pennants or dogma, no books, no authorities. It is a SINGLE position on a SINGLE question on the existence of gods. Now there is a world view that many atheists share. Most of us, at least with the ACA, are skeptics, that informs our worldview. Its my atheism as a direct product of skepticism. Many of us are secular humanists which tells us a little bit more about our moral outlook on life and other things. There"s many many many labels that would fit. There are a number of secular worldviews that are consistent with atheism. Just saying you are an atheist alone doesn"t say anything at all about somebody"s worldview. By the way most Buddhists are atheists. They don"t believe in a god. But they believe in any number of, in some cases, supernatural things that I don"t accept, some of them don"t accept that either, so yeah atheism is not a worldview. It can certainly be a part of a worldview. But its not a worldview in that broad sense."
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: Con called Pro a "troll" in round four. This is poor conduct.

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