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

Is God Real?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 12/24/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 619 times Debate No: 98395
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)





1- I shall pose arguments on rounds 2 and 3 / My opponent shall pose arguments on rounds 1 and 2
2 - The final rounds will be used to pose questions to each other
3 - No usage of wikipedia is allowed
4 - 300 Words minimum for each round


Then this is so, in the first place I am atheist and I intend to explain and argue in favor of my ideals.
Therefore I consider that the existence of God has always been psychologically necessary since from the past the human being had to have a higher being in whom to trust and to make requests and behold the polytheistic religions began and then began to develop more and more until they became The monotheists who exist today. But you can see that today most of the world's population believes in God and I consider it extremely ridiculous because this belief is an offense to the human being's capacities, but also to his intellect, because to believe that an invisible being that watches over 7 billion people is something extremely unlikely. But these needs, ranging from helping a close person who is struggling to give money, have always comforted people by ignoring the natural laws of life or even the scientific facts, turning them into a mental pollution for the human being. Secondly, I would like to address the fact that God is extremely kind because according to what is written in the bible, taken as the word of the Lord, it is a rude, cruel and prejudiced being, and I refer to the biblical history of the destruction of Sodom and gomorrah where god destroyed two cities because they lived there homosexuals, it is something extremam.
Debate Round No. 1


I shall begin by making arguments against my opponent"s thesis for Round 1:
In the first place, believing in god isn"t insulting the humans" capacities, it just claims there is someone behind the human abilities, who created those abilities and made the human race thrive.
In the second place, the story of Sodom & Gomorrah, never really mentioned homosexuality as a crime. This story only described one form of homosexual intercourse, which was gang raping. Gang raping is a crime, and that"s what"s being condemned in this story.

For my first argument, I'd like to say that science wouldn't be able to create the earth, in its relation with the universe with the perfectionism that it's created.
"It has a good distance from the sun - therefore, the temperature is adequate for human life
"It has a good atmosphere / ozone layer - To protect the humans from the sun rays
A random explosion couldn't create something like this, it would be required bigger god-like perfectionism, therefore, being the earth as it is, it's clear that god created the universe.

For my second argument, there has been several times where certain miracles happened; I can give you the example of Pope John Paul II dodging a bullet that was coming straight at him.
Assuming science was in charge of the world (Especially classic newton physics, which are the base argument for determinists.) the bullet would have hit John Paul II directly, hence killing him. With this in account, we can say there is no chance that science developed any miracles, as it is deterministic, and therefore the only valid alternative is to claim this miracle was in fact, work from god. Having this in account, god exists

With these arguments and their follow ups, I encourage you to vote "pro" in our debate


So my opponent made a point of putting two arguments on the table, well.
My opponent's argument that God exists because science would never be able to create a world so "perfect" and that a random explosion would not create is the typical theory of believers, since it is necessary to take into account that the period between Big Bang and the creation of Planet Earth was extremely long and nowadays several scientists are presenting ever more valid proof that it was precisely the random explosion that created the universe.
The second argument of my opponent, using the example of the attack on Pope John Paul II, is not of my point of view something valid because in this matter the odds are already in, Mohamed Agca may have been aiming the Pope's chest but failed It is not the theory immediately released by the Catholic Church that the virgin Mary had been there to deflect the bullet and furthermore I believe that at that very moment more than one person was being shot and the mother of Christ was not present.

For my new argument, I would like to mention the fear of death that humans suffer. And that fear was mitigated by the belief of heaven, hell and purgatory, although the latter is somewhat disqualified. Hence there is another reason for belief in a higher being.
My next argument is that the supposed existence of god was more accepted after the creation of the Catholic Church and the carinificin acts that practiced throughout the Middle Ages and by that time created something that hangs to the present day and its goal stays well Alive, sin. Sin over time has been extremely useful for the enrichment of the Holy See and today it is something that torments the believer but sin is nothing more than an instrument of control that the Vatican and other religious institutions use to insure their believers hence the supposed Existence of god is extremely useful for the coffers of Christian doctrines. So this is more proof of how God only exists in people's heads.

I appeal to all who are viewing this debate to identify which of us holds the reason
Debate Round No. 2


So onto my opponent's arguments : There isn't a fear of death by the christians, there is indeed the theory that there is a heaven, heel and purgatory, however, the catholic believers believe in a thrustworthy and forgiving god, and therefore, there wouldn't be an actual fear of death for actual believers nor was it ever promoted by the church.
For his second argument, he claimed that sin was a way of control by the Vatican, and as I mentioned before, god is forgiving, hence the word "Sin" is not a way to control, is something to be forgiven.
For my first argument: The afterlife " There have been several people who had near death experiences, and yet found a type of "underworld", almost as if it was some sort of "heaven", if science was in charge and there was no god, the chances of finding an afterlife would be slight to none, with this in consideration, we can say that god exists and has worked in this area.
For my second argument: Science couldn"t have created itself. The existence of an omnipotent being creating itself makes much more sense than a mixture of particles generating an entire universe. Along with this, the eternal universe theory was denied by both science and philosophy
"The infinite [as in infinite past time] is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite"is solely that of an idea."
-David Hilbert " The father of finite mathematics said this. This theory has been supported by many mathematicians
With this, the universe is not infinite, hence only a creator would have made it.

With these arguments and the following rounds of questions / answers I encourage you to vote pro in today"s debate.


So I would like to make my opponent here only a counter-argument.
He stated that sin is God's forgiveness but where I wanted to deal with this statement is the habit that the saint has already inhabited us since the past centuries to warn us not to have sex with a person of the same sex, not to be Communists and so on. For if one were to commit sin, sin, which becomes an obstacle to heaven and to remedy sin, one must confess and donate, say, a small monetary sum to the Catholic Church.

But turning to the arguments that my opponent referred to would like to question about the obscure example of the alleged experiences of "near death" that some people suffer and are going to pay a visit to the god or the devil.
But what proves that these people actually went to those places?

And as for the second argument, in which my opponent said that it makes more sense to have a powerful being who created the universe than a mixture of particles and that for the existence of a finite universe there could be only one creative being. Well then, what my opponent has just said becomes an opposition to the fact that has been constantly asserted and reaffirmed by astronomers and scientists.
Debate Round No. 3


Ok, Responding to the questions:

On question number 1 : There were people who survived these near death experiences and survived to tell the story, these people reported visits to an underworld and witnessed events like reconnecting with passed ancestors, so that is confirmed.

On question number 2 : The argument said the universe wasn't eternal, even if it has been expanding over time, the theory of an infinite universe leads to logical impossibility.

My questions to my opponent are the following:

My opponent has mentioned that the doctrine was only accepted after mass murders, however, there have been atheist mass murderers over time as well, we have as examples Mao Zedong and Pol Pot.
How is this anyhow explainable? Even though there is more information today and peoples" minds are more open, there are still mass murders from the athiests , which is something we don"t see for the Christian church.

For my second question : My opponent said that he believed the science and the science believed that the creation of the universe was actually made from the big bang. However: Why? If god didn"t create the universe and it was made by science, what was its causality? There has to be a cause for the universe to be created, and it can"t be found by science.

With this I encourage you to vote pro in todays" debate, and thank you for your time.


Well, answering the first question of my opponent who made a point of seeking historical facts, I have a duty to remember that Mao Zedong practiced genocide but was unreasonable because his goal was for China to take a step forward and had no religious motives. Political-economic character. Although I practiced the invasion and subsequent occupation of Tibet (which I personally condemn) for religious reasons. Already the Catholic Church practiced genocides in order to put in the head of the people that God exists.

As for the second question that has been posed I have to respond in an unconventional way, in nature and science not everything that happens has a cause, because it happens. Why are there earthquakes, because there is a vibration of the tectonic plates and why is it that the tectonic plates vibrate? In nature many events have no plausible explanation and it can be said that in the case of the creation of the universe and the Big Bang was the case.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: Xanxus// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: ..

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD.
Posted by TheArtist 1 year ago
How do you know God's plan didn't always include the creation of this world? Are you claiming that He once was against creating anything and then decided otherwise later? How do you know this?
He certainly did not need to create this world but yes, He wanted to. The definition of perfect is being faultless, flawless, does not need anything added etc., it does not mean that he can not have wants. I do not need a new car, but I certainly want one - God's want is a bit different than my want though.

God's attributes and nature are given in scripture and it says that He does not change. How can you claim that He is not immutable by creating the world? Which of His attributes changed when he created everything? He isn't any less faultless or flawless for doing so.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
If god is perfect, does god need to create? A perfect being has no needs or wants. A perfect being never changes, a perfect being can't become more perfect or less perfect, because it is perfect.
To believe God created this world is to go against the character of an immutable God, because that means he changed his mind from being the sole being of existence to many beings of existence.
If god is immutable, he never changes, then how can he change his mind and create.
The Christian god has to many descriptive failings and limiting attributes to be a perfect god.
The more you know the less you believe...............................
Posted by imjustsomeopinion 1 year ago
if either of you wins there was biased in the voting.....just saying. this isn't a topic you can prove or disprove.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ChadIrvin 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I voted pro because they provided a better argument overall and I am also a believer.