The Instigator
Debataholic
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
missmedic
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

This Simple Explanation Proves 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 3 votes the winner is...
missmedic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/3/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 897 times Debate No: 118029
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

Debataholic

Pro

For years, Atheists and agnostics have claimed that there is no physical evidence that God exists. Today, They will feel humbled because I have found something that proves the existence of God. I want you to imagine a glass cylinder. Inside that glass cylinder is nothing but air. On one end, There is a little rubber hose that constantly sucks all the air out, Creating a vacuum (It's sealed on the other end. ). Now, An atheist or an agnostic would, Most likely, Look at it and conclude that there is nothing inside the cylinder and, Admittedly, They would be correct. However, They fail to realize that the glass cylinder, Itself, Also plays an important role in the existence of "nothing" and without it, "nothing" would be unable to exist. In conclusion, In order for "nothing" to exist, Something must be present to give it form.
missmedic

Con

An uncaused God is more complicated than an uncaused Big Bang. When it comes to comparing arguments where there is no hope of actually getting any physical evidence, There is a long-standing heuristic to help distinguish between theories, Called Occam's Razor: it turns out that when all evidence is accounted for, The theory with fewest assumptions is more likely to be true. God requires many properties and complexities such as consciousness, Thought, Personality, Creative drive, Love, An internal logic ordering its thoughts so that it can think coherently and rationally, Memory, Etc: All of these properties must have been derived from somewhere. It turns out that God is a vastly more complicated thing than the Big Bang and the fundamental laws of the Universe.
Debate Round No. 1
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by master-de-baiter 3 years ago
master-de-baiter
has this man forgotten space exist without a container
Posted by PhilDouglas 3 years ago
PhilDouglas
LOL, This is the most retarded argument I have ever heard in my entire life. I think the only empty container is your pill bottle. You need to get that prescription refilled! Try to do it when there's at least 5 pills still left so you don't run out again.
Posted by 32doni32nido32 3 years ago
32doni32nido32
Lol this is hilarious
Posted by Block19 3 years ago
Block19
@Madvic

If you think about it can you ever really have nothing in an area that exist within space and time? Even if you are talking about a "void" in the universe or an area that has no detectable matter, It would still still exist with and therefore contain space and time. Wouldn't you agree.
Posted by Madvic 3 years ago
Madvic
Space and time give it form, What is your point?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
DebataholicmissmedicTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering both inadequate votes as best I can.
Vote Placed by BetteMidler 3 years ago
BetteMidler
DebataholicmissmedicTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This scenario described would not result in a perfect vacuum. Even the most successful labratory vacuums on Earth have not come close to the vacuum of space, which still contains several particles of hydrogen per cubic meter. Several experiments like the one you described have been used to help understand and calculate air pressure, but it no way does has any similar experiment shown that there is "nothing" in the partial vacuum. An atheist or agnostic who assumes there is "nothing" in the vacuum is incorrect, but both atheist and religious people with a physics background would be able to explain the miscalculation in this argument.
Vote Placed by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
DebataholicmissmedicTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was solid on his rebuttals by stating that "God requires many properties and complexities..." whereas Pro's entire argument was completely dependent upon only one argument in which did not prove "God".

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