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

There is a 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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/16/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 943 times Debate No: 54803
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)




Most people who tend to believe god does not exist usually think they are just simply logical people. If you truly do believe in logic then let me ask you this i god did not exist who created the universe. Even if the big bang is proven true something must have triggered it to happen. A house cannot appear on its own nor does car or even a book. Alot of people say its "the force of nature" really seriously is that just basically another term for god. IF you people truly are logical please explain how having a god is much more logical then believing everything exist magically.


Hello Shaanbarca and thank you for creating this debate. I look forward to discussing this with you.

It should be worth noting that whilst I have taken the 'Con' side of this debate, I do in fact, on a religious level, believe in God. However. believing in God and proving God's existence are two very different things.

To convince an agnostic or atheist of God's existence requires hard evidence. People who are driven by facts and logic will look to scientific explanations of observed phenomena and such observations are possible on a great many things that would at one point have been explained as 'God did it'. It was once believed in ancient Greek societies that thunder and lightening were the result of Zeus and the patheon of Greek Gods, when in fact now we know what drives weather patterns.

Whilst what you say is true- a house cannot appear on it's own- a house is the result of construction, by human beings, not the result of an other-worldly or higher power. The universe's beginning is one of the greatest mysteries of our time, but the fact it is unexplained now does not mean it never will be. It would be logical to assume 'God did it', as quite simply, we have no data one way or the other, and no other direct evidence God exists.
Debate Round No. 1


Ok so i'm going to base my arguments on the Quran and proven scientific facts so basically i saw you mentioned about people needing scientific proof so i have gathered scientific information, so this is all from the Quran i have cited all my sources so you could check if you want . Take note that the Quran was completed in 632 CE and in it contains not just morals or stories but scientific facts so i'm going to start with the first one fact which was "We made every living thing from water? Will they not believe? [21:30]" so this has been proven to be true we now know that cells are mostly made up of water as 80% of the cytoplasm is made out of water . This then was proven to be true hundreds of years later after the invention of the microscope.

Another verse was "We made the sky a protective ceiling. And yet they are turning away from Our signs! [21:32]" This yet again was proven to be true, the sky plays a vital part because as we know the sun's ray can be dangerous so with the sky it suppresses the rays of the sun preventing us to be radiated. The sky also functions as a blanket to protects us from the cold of space as without it we would all freeze in minutes

"And it is We (God and his angels) who have built the Universe with [Our creative] power and keep expanding it. [51:47]" This verse talks about the expansion of the universe and remember there was not much technology back then and not even the telescope was invented and only recently it was discovered that this was indeed true that the universe is expanding.

"It is He who created night and day, the Sun and the Moon, each floating in its orbit. [21:33]" This talks about how the sun is in orbit, before the 20th century people thought the was wrong Quran now it was proven that it is moving in an orbit around the centre of our Milky Way galaxy.

Honestly i could go on and on, these are just some of the scientific facts that were in the Quran and were just recently "discovered" but i would prefer to say verify by modern technology and knowledge. The Quran teaches us to learn and learn but also not to forget in the existence of god. As you can see the Quran contains a lot of science in it that were far ahead of its time. I recall my teacher saying religion is the death of science but as i have shown you he has been proven wrong. Who could knew all of this at that time, how could so many scientific information be inside a book that was made a thousand years is that possible?. One answer god, religion was not made to control it was made to guide us. Islam started in the middle east because (sorry to say) they were deemed as barbaric people and no offense they still a bit are. Knowledge is important but know that humans are not perfect, if we were then the whole world would be a utopia. Its not religion that causes the decline of knowledge but arrogance, lust for power and many more horrid qualities. Also i am basing this on Islam and im not going to find facts on any other religion as i myself am a muslim.


Whilst it is compelling to believe that God's word was the driving force behind the texts you quote, it is important to remember that the Quran, like other religious documents, was written by human beings, and is not the direct word of God.

Interpretation is everything. Prior to the age of science many events were chalked up to miracles and God. Every religion contains passages with several possible interpretations of events written from the perspective of falliable human beings who would not have understood what they were observing.

The primary means of transmission for the Quran was verbally back during Muhammad's life. This is not an efficient or reliable means of accurately passing information from one generation to the next.

It is also worth noting that the Quran has, like other major religious documents, undergone changes since its original documentation. I will agree that its predictions are impressive, but they do not automatically translate into the direct influence of God.
Debate Round No. 2


I have read your argument but it seems you have evaded my statement. It is true that the Quran was made by man but the words were not arrange by them. You have not answered my question on how the Quran was able to give this knowledge a thousand years ago. If it was purely made by man then how have they acquired these knowledge. Even if there was changes how could these verses contain so many scientific facts that were only RECENTLY discovered to be true. I have a feeling you doubt these verses exist, i recommend you to check them and verify if you want. Also it has been historically proven the the Quran has never changed not even a letter. A copy of Uthman"s Mus"haf, kept in Topkapi Palace in Istanbul was found this was around 644 and nothing has changed only style of writing. Thats actually the reason why that it still uses arabic words which was to prevent that. There are still many more, feel free to research you self. You should not be antagonistic in your argument as it will be your downfall in this argument. I think i have won this argument as you have not proven anything wrong i have said.


There is a saying about counting chickens before they've hatched. It might be unwise for you to proclaim victory at this point.

Your points toward arguing God exists can be summed up as two main arguments:

1. You argue that the passages you quote from the Quran are evidence of messages from God, directly handed down to Muhammad.

2. You assert the unwavering accuracy of the Quran from the moment it was first transcribed.

On point 2, it is worth noting that a number of scholars do in fact doubt the Quran has never been altered or amended in any way, and at the bottom of this rebuttal I will provide links to several arguments that cast doubt that the Quran represents an unaltered document.

On point 1, beyond the word of Muhammad, what proof is there that God revealed this information to him? The Quran was written by human beings, after being transmitted verbally by human beings, and was not completely brought together into a coherent documen until Muhammad's death. There is a lot of room for misinterpretation or mistakes in that time.

Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by seeking-knowledge 7 years ago
Peace everyone. Actually, we do not understand that the Quran is revelation from God only by Muhammad's words (pbuh), but also from people's opinion who personally knew/met him.
Their relatives and his wife Khadijah immediately understood that it was revelation from God.
Also 'A'ishah saw him when some verses were revealed to him. (al-Bukhari 1:2, and 1:3)
The first to recognize him as a prophet was a christian, Heraclius.
(see Al-Bukhari, 1:6 and 1:48
Posted by shaanbarca 7 years ago
dude thats not what i meant with the force of nature, what i meant was that some people say god did not create the world it was a force of nature that what pisses me off and that what i meant
Posted by schachdame 7 years ago
In the lights of DylanLang's comment I am going to admit, that agnostics and atheists can encounter as well the embarrassed of seeing someone fight for what you think is right, in a way that is neither appropriate, well thought through nor witty. As matter of fact I encourage everyone who follows this debate from a non-religious point to make a good example by not fighting brainless religious arguments with brainless pseudo-scientific arguments. It's just a shame, we claim to do better, so we have to live up to this.
Posted by ArcTImes 7 years ago
The question is implaying that it's a who so it's fallacious.
Posted by DylanLang 7 years ago
I'd like to state my point on this, unless i see someone walk on water that is not frozen, bottled up or in any type of container, I'm going to remain a skeptic.
Posted by nonprophet 7 years ago
"the force of nature" really seriously is that just basically another term for god.

You can also argue that "Pencil" really seriously is just basically another term for god.

Since pencils exist. a god exists.

My point is, nature is not god. Nature is nature

Books, houses, etc are not naturally occurring, they are man-made.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 7 years ago
Your only argument so far is that nobody has been able to explain how something happened to you, so you assume there's a god.
Posted by schachdame 7 years ago
Please, the concept of god involves the crucial part that you have to believe that something is CONCLUSIVELY true because it CAN NOT be scientifically proven wrong. And point of science is that something is ONLY right if it CAN be proven right. You cannot possibly expect to debate about something that is not compatible in it's way of proving, because debates are about proving your point. These two concepts of truth are not compatible - there is no way of disproving the other side in a way it will accept.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by DerKing 7 years 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's spelling was atrocious, and did not provide any sources (saying something is from a source without providing source does not count), Pro also had worse conduct. Because of the pretentious nature of this debate, and because Pro did provide some evidence and was not way out done by Con, convincing arguments is tied.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 7 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct seemed equal. S&G should go to Con, but I suspect that, perhaps, English is not Pro's firs tlanguage, and am being accordingly lenient. Con actually sourced his point, but I don't think it was sufficient to award points. As to arguments, as Con noted, the relative accuracy of the text's scientific claims would not necessarily prove the existence of god, and Con cast doubt on the legitimacy of the text and interpretation as well. Pro, using your holy book (whatever it may be) is rarely going to be sufficient to fulfill a BoP on the existence of a deity. Arguments to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by Charliecdubs 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Better sources and far more logical arguments but then again it is hard to be unbiased and go with the side that wants there to be a god when there isn't a known non-fallacious argument for one. Impossible uphill battle for Pro

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