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

Is there evidence for the existence of God?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/16/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,700 times Debate No: 118565
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (31)
Votes (0)




Most of the arguments for the existence of God commits the God of the Gaps/Argument from Ignorance fallacy. I'll attempt to demonstrate that this is not a good argument.

The cause of lightning was once thought to be God's wrath, But turned out to be the unintelligent outcome of mindless natural forces. We once thought an intelligent being must have arranged and maintained the amazingly ordered motions of the solar system, But now we know it's all the inevitable outcome of mindless natural forces. Disease was once thought to be the mischief of supernatural demons, But now we know that tiny, Unintelligent organisms are the cause, Which reproduce and infect us according to mindless natural forces. In case after case, Without exception, The trend has been to find that purely natural causes underlie any phenomena. Not once has the cause of anything turned out to really be God's wrath or intelligent meddling, Or demonic mischief, Or anything supernatural at all. The collective weight of these observations is enormous: supernaturalism has been tested at least a million times and has always lost; naturalism has been tested at least a million times and has always won. A horse that runs a million races and never loses is about to run yet another race with a horse that has lost every single one of the million races it has run. Which horse should we bet on? The answer is obvious.


If there is such a thing as a stupid question, Then you have asked it.
The one and only answer is faith based belief, Just ask Ken Ham. Faith is often described as a "way of knowing" that doesn"t require factual evidence. It"s a deep and sincere feeling that something is true. Many religious believers feel a close emotional connection to their God. To them, This feeling is itself proof of their beliefs; no further evidence is necessary.
Debate Round No. 1


"If there is such a thing as a stupid question, Then you have asked it. "

Actually, It is not stupid. You're going to find a lot of philosophers worried about this question. Some of them are the most influential philosophers in the world.

"no further evidence is necessary"

I know that anyone who believes in God does not need empirical evidence. But an atheist does not have that faith, And claims he needs evidence to believe in a deity. In this regard, You were not able to defend the theistic position, Because you did not present any rational motif to accept the proposition: God exists.


When you hold a belief with certainty "no further evidence is necessary".
" But an atheist does not have that faith, And claims he needs evidence to believe in a deity. "
I do not ask for evidence, I am happy not knowing. I do not need to defend the theistic position. I do not need to believe in a god to show evidence for the existence of a god.
Knowledge is evidence and faith is a way of knowing. The proposition "is there evidence for the existence of God? ", Yes there is evidence "faith based belief".
Debate Round No. 2


"I do not ask for evidence, I am happy not knowing"

It may be true that you don't care and don't want evidence, But surely, From the theistic point of view, It's important to save all the souls they can. . . And the only way of doing that, Is by demonstrating that their God exist. So, This issue is very important. If God exists, The non-believers may suffer for eternity, And that's not nice.

"I do not need to defend the theistic position. "

It seems to me you're not interested in having a debate about this. I'm wasting my time typing this text.

'Knowledge is evidence and faith is a way of knowing. "

No. Faith means believing without evidence. You don't know if God exists. . You just have hope that he exists. There is no way of knowing (from their point of view).


Knowing is a state of mind. When we know something is true, We feel with great certainty that it"s true. But the act of knowing does not itself make anything true: our mental states represent the world, They don"t control it.
Certainly it"s the case that some religious beliefs could be true. The universe is a mysterious place, And our understanding of it is not, And never will be, Complete. There may be things that are true but that can"t be proven true with factual evidence. Some of them could be current articles of religious faith. Most theist believe with certainty that God exist, For them this is knowledge.
The theory of knowledge identifies 8 different ways of knowing, Each one involving a different method of gaining knowledge, But just like with the areas of knowledge, They are often intertwined and dependent on each other. They are Language, Sense perception, Emotion, Reason, Imagination, Faith, Intuition and Memory. There is also eight areas of knowledge, Mathematics, Natural Sciences, Human Sciences, History, The Arts, Ethics, Religious Knowledge Systems and Indigenous Knowledge Systems.
In some contexts, Faith is simply belief without evidence. But this is only a starting point. Faith has two primary meanings. It can be used as a synonym for trust in the secular world, And notably, In a more dogmatic sense, For all-or-nothing belief in, And personal commitment to God or Allah, That is central to most denominations of Christianity and Islam respectively. This is a good example of the polysemy of language.
I am interested in having this debate, The point I am try to show is that it is very hard to argue against belief when it is held with certainty.
Debate Round No. 3


You can't KNOW something without some reason (no matter what it is). For example: If I tell you that I know you exist, It is because I'm debating you right now, I'm responding to an argument you presented. It's a fact about reality (pressuposing we're not living in a matrix or I'm a brain in a vat). Which is different from wishing to believe (faith). I could wish to believe you would admit you're wrong, But that doesn't make it true.

You said: "But the act of knowing does not itself make anything true:"

You're equivocating 'knowledge' with 'faith'. I KNOW something because it's probably true. But I have faith in something because I want to believe it's true. I hope it's true. That's the distinction.

" The point I am try to show is that it is very hard to argue against belief when it is held with certainty. "

But I'm not trying to argue against faith. The main question is: Is there evidence for the existence of God?

The atheist doesn't have faith. But he/she (not you) wants evidence.

So, Do you think the existence of a god CANNOT be demonstrated through philosophy and/or science?


Logic and reason isn't everything. Not everything in this world is rational. Not everything that we know in the world is known through logic and reason. Sometimes we have to use our intuition, And listen to our hearts. There are different ways of knowing than just reason and evidence. There are absolutely areas of life in which logic and reason don't apply. Or don't predominate, Anyway. Love, Of course, Is a classic example. The classic example, Probably. It's an emotional, Irrational, Impulsive, Intuitive, Largely unconscious act. Or take art. The part of us that loves music, Images, Stories. . . It's not a logical part. Not entirely, Anyway. A huge amount of it is personal, Emotional, Visceral. And it should be.
I can think of oodles more examples. Humor. Sexual desire. Friendship. Sentiment and nostalgia. Tastes in food. I think you get my drift, Though. Many of the most central, Most profound experiences of human life are things we experience emotionally, Intuitively, Irrationally.
But have you noticed a pattern to these examples? They're all matters of opinion. They're all matters of subjective experience.
None of them is concerned with trying to understand what is true. Not just what is true for us, Personally, But what is true in the external world. The world we all share, As opposed to the ones. And that is where the evidence exist for a persons god in there own heads and hearts.
Debate Round No. 4


Most things you presented here to demonstrate that not everything is rational, Can be explained by evolution and has some role in survival. Love (living in society, Reproducing, Etc. . ). I could spend the whole day looking for rational motifs for enjoying music, Humor, Love and other things, But I think you got it.

"They're all matters of subjective experience. "

Well. . . . I don't know. I mean. . . The opinions can differ, But the essence is the same. You may like rock music and I like classic music, But both of us like music. And that's an objetive fact that can be rationally explained by evolution.

"None of them is concerned with trying to understand what is true. "

I agree, But this has nothing to do with knowledge and faith.

Knowledge (facts about the world) is objective. It's not subjective as you're trying to imply. The way we see the world may be slightly different, But we're seeing the same objective reality. So, If there is evidence for God, Everybody is going to see it. They will have knowledge about it, And not just faith (the wish to believe).


This debate has been a challenge for me as I do not adhere to faith, However I do understand how Christians use faith as a reasonable way to know.
Biblical faith is not a blind faith but is, In fact, Faith in evidence. First of all, The Bible is very clear that faith is based on truth. God"s Word is Truth (John 17:17), And God cannot lie, Or contradict this Truth (Titus 1:2). Thus, The whole Bible presupposes the validity of reason. ( I know that these points can be argued, But that is not the point of them. )
These point show how a believer can claim there is evidence for the existence of God. You do not have to agree with Christianity to understand it. I know I don't agree, But that's why we're here. Thanks for the debate. . .
Debate Round No. 5
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by croweupc 2 years ago
Sure faith is a way of knowing, But it is not a way to determine truth. What religious beliefs could you not hold with faith as a way of knowledge? JWs and Mormons use faith. So does every other religion.
Posted by cpharris21 3 years ago
It seems like your arguement is, "I beleive so it is true, " right? ! People used to beleive the world is flat and some still do. That does not make it so. I beleive you are a real person but that does not make it so because now we know computer programs can generate responses. Everyday we learn more and more about the world it always seems to go against what people believe in. Old wise tell about hope in one hand and poop in the other and see which on fills up faster. Same can be said about beliefs and faith. To beleive without proof leaves a risk of being wrong. And if we actually have a soul, You gambled yours on your beliefs with no proof. I would say i hope your right, But then I might be out of luck.
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
@missmedic a "sacrifice" is an offering. . . . . In OT times, People would make sacrifices, Or an offering, To God. . . They would offer to God something-- ram. . . A bull. . . Etc. They would take from their flock and sacrifice it to God. . . . Sure they had other animals in the flock, So they would hardly be giving up something, But it's still a sacrifice or an offering in that regard.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
That is called metaphysical bullshat.
Posted by Mentalista 3 years ago
Sorry the grammatical erros.
Posted by Just-Call-Me-PK 3 years ago
@missmedic all you are showing is your ignorance of scripture and highlighting Jesus's divinity more. God has revealed to us he is 1 God in 3 persons. Yes you are correct God is unchanging but what you have failed to mention as Jesus tells us, Him and the father are one and have always existed. Jesus is fully man and fully God, To do this is like kids play to an omnipotent being. This is why God became man, To show us how much he loves us, The man Jesus suffered horrendously and experienced death for us and then comfirmed his claims by raising himself on the third day. You can't "allow yourself to be sacrificed" you just sacrifice. What did he sacrifice? His only begotten son to save souls, Thats all.
Posted by Mentalista 3 years ago
1 - I never said anything about "Knowing God through science". I said it's possible to find evidence of God in the natural world.

Again. If God can interact with the physical world, He is testable.

2 - Is it possible to die for a false cause? Muslins do it all the time. They really believe the prophet's word and the BS he said.
Posted by Mentalista 3 years ago
I will try to be brief.

1 - The probability argument predicts Jesus didn't exist for two reasons. First: If it's true that his existence implies that supernatural events happened, Then, It's more probable that he didn't exist, Since the supernatural (the horse loser) is highly unlikely.

2nd: Many religions existed, With resurrected Gods and claims about the supernatural. These religions contradict each other. Each culture has it's own religion. But since they contradic each other, They can't both be true. And since most of them must be false, It's very unlikely that resurrection of christianity is true. If we follow the probability argument, This is the conclusion about Jesus's existence and divinity.

And you're confusing popularity (between christian schoolars) with probabilty. Nice try, But this is not how the argument works.

2 - Appealing to popularity is self-refuting, Since the majority of scholars also think Moses didn't exist. So, Even if I accept the claim that Jesus existed (based on popularity) I should also accept that Moses didn't, And therefore, The Bible would be false.

3 - Jesus resurrection is not mentioned in non-christian writings. The guys you mentioned before barely talk about Jesus, And never say anything about Jesus having been resurrected.
And if you're talking about Paul: The non-christian doesn't have any reason to believe the epistles. They could be biased just like the gospels. He also doesn't have any reason to believe Paul's word about having been imprisioned. Paul probably existed, But there is no reason to believe the things he wrote.
Again: the non-christian doesn't have the duty to accept Paul's word about being a persecutor of christians.

" After years of study and research science shows us that its probable Jesus existed"

You're contradicting yourself. You said it's impossible to prove God's existence with science. Now you're saying it did.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
That my friend is a contradiction as god, By it's biblical admission god does not change. How can god change into a dead man and then back into a god?
If Jesus is God then presumably he is omnipotent. If this is true, Then when he allowed himself to be sacrificed, Didn"t he do this with the knowledge that he was immortal? If so, Then how exactly was it a sacrifice for him? What did he sacrifice? Two days off for an immortal being does not a death payment make.
Posted by Just-Call-Me-PK 3 years ago
@missmedic you can't know God exists because. . . ? Jesus cares enough about us to give his life for us so that we may live. Can you explain why you think that?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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