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

is God real?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 825 times Debate No: 113049
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)



I see that I am making a huge claim that God exists so because the burden of proof lies on me, I will start.
The first thing atheists tell me when I say that God exists is that no one can prove it. This is partially correct because we cannot see physical signs of him. That does not mean however that there aren't good arguments for him. There is a reason why we don't see signs of him which I will go into in a minute. But atheists seem to think that because we cannot see him means he doesn't exist. But gravity, wind, and atoms can't be seen, so does that mean they don't exist? Of course not. That argument presented by atheists is flawed. The next thing I get from atheists is that we have proof of atoms, gravity, and wind, yet we have no proof of God. Well, there is a reason for this. Christianity is the religion I believe in and it is 100% a faith-based belief. And well, if we had piles of evidence for him, would it then still be faith-based? Faith is the belief in the unseen but if we see God, then we no longer believe in God by faith. As a matter of fact, if we had piles of evidence for him, then everyone would believe in him and therefore be saved, which again contradicts the Bible and what Christians believe.
But back to my point of there being good cases for God. There are many of them but for the first round, I will go into three of them.
The first is the argument from design. When you look at the world around us, you see the complexity of it. Take DNA. It contains the amount of information equivalent to 1000 sets of Encyclopedia Britannica's put together. Every life form on this earth has them. Without a God, in the equation, then it all must have come from nothing. But if it takes a very smart person-years to put together even one, then wouldn't there have to be an even more intelligent person to put together 1000 sets of encyclopedia's in the first one-celled animal. Or did it all just come together from an explosion, also known as the big bang? If so, that is an awful lot to be arranged perfectly from a single explosion. And if DNA is that complicated, can you even imagine the rest of the world? How can it be chance? How can it all come from an explosion that I don't even believe to be possible. Nothing cannot produce something so I don't see how this explosion could have occurred. This world calls for an intelligent designer, not chance.
My second argument is the argument from motion. According to Isaac Newton's first law of motion everything that is in motion will stay in motion until acted on by another force. At the same time, nothing will ever be in motion until acted on by another force. In other words if anything is in motion, there must be a force that causes it to do so. This law completely contradicts the idea that there is no God. You see, everything in this world is in motion. Because nothing can set itself in motion, there must be an outside force that is the result of all motion today. Because God is all powerful he can do anything and therefore does not need to be set in motion and is the only thing that can be the root cause of all motion today. Otherwise, Isaac Newton is wrong.
My third argument is the cosmological argument. Here is what it states:
P1 everything that exists has a cause of existence
P2 Because the universe exists, it must have a cause of existence
P3 Because nothing cannot produce something, that cause must be an outside force
P4 That outside force is God
P5 God created the universe
C God exists
I will probably get lots of questions on this particular argument which I will answer in the next round.
So tell me, If God does not exists, then give me a step by step explanation of how the universe was created from nothing.


The BOP is always upon those that believe, no exceptions, none, because it is you that believes in something that has never been proven by anyone, not ever. And there"s never been any tests, determinations nor demonstrations to prove that this god of your exists in the first place to prove that this god exists. So you must prove that this god exists. Its also not the "job" of an atheist to prove that this god character to leap of of a page of a book because many atheists don"t really care. Sure some do. But not many.
"The first thing atheists tell me when I say that God exists is that no one can prove it." Here"s some videos to help you as to what an atheist is.... - Reasons for accepting atheism - Bill Maher - Idiots must stop claiming atheism is a religion - Atheism a religion? - The case for Atheism (Richard Carrier) - The Gospel According to Carrier - A believers guide to Atheism in 9 minutes - Is Atheism a Dogmatic Religion?

"Christianity is the religion I believe in and it is 100% a faith-based belief."
Well that"s major fallacy right there. And no offence, but faith is 100% ridiculous. Especially especially especially especially from a christian god who has a superior ego god complex in which the bible is entirely about and nothing else. He"d want to blab his entire existence all over the map and would never use faith to do it especially with his ego AND especially only blabbing his existence to only a few so-called prophets in which case, well who knows - did they even get god"s message correct? Nobody knows because no god would ---ever--- use text as a source of communication, the worst form of communication possible. Faith is not evidence. Text is not evidence. Especially when this god character can simply come on down here and talk to us IF and only IF this god is a true god and is omnipotent and can do anything. Now that would be evidence. Here"s a few quotes which will hopefully set you on the right track that will make sense to you because they are 100% correct and they make sense - just think about them"
"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 is the reason people give when they don"t have 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
"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." Richard Dawkins

"And well, if we had piles of evidence for him," No you have 0 evidence for him. None.
"but if we see God, then we no longer believe in God by faith." Well duh. "As a matter of fact, if we had piles of evidence for him," See, so by your own admission right there you DO NOT have piles of evidence for this god character of yours. "then everyone would believe in him and therefore be saved," saved" saved from what? "which again contradicts the Bible and what Christians believe." Well the bible is one big super massive hypocritical contradiction in the first place. I mean you"ve got at least 1,000 super massive hypocritical contradictions and inconsistencies in your bible alone thus making it unreadable in the first place. A few by your god as well such as "thou shalt not kill" and yet god kills. Pathetic.

OK so you think that the bible is evidence, so let"s put that to prove that its not and this god of yours would never use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possibile"
NOTHING is established in scripture. That"s because the christian god, if remotely intelligent in which he is clearly not, would never use text as a source of communication, the worst form of communication possible so everybody can get it wrong. There"s translations upon translations upon translations upon translations upon copies upon copies upon copies upon copies upon dead languages upon dead langanguages with absolutely 0% of a chance to trance it back to the original. So absolutely nobody knows if they are interpreting correctly. - Christians don't understand the character of God
"If god is all knowing and he knows the future of all events and he wrote a book that can only be interpreted as if it endorses slavery and if its heinous violence against your children against your neighbors" how could a god be that omnipotent and devise a book where we can"t distinguish between the law of Israel and god"s law? I mean their interwoven where we have metaphor and fact and nobody can distinguish the two. We don"t know what we"re supposed to take figuratively. We don"t know what we"re supposed to take literally. Was it actually a tree? I mean come on. How can anyone distinguish this. I mean come on. It doesn"t make any sense. It doesn"t matter how its translated. It doesn"t matter what version. If it was written by an omnipotent being there would be ONE VERSION. And there would be only ONE WAY to interpret it because it would be written well." Aron Ra
Actually it wouldn"t be written at all. What"s wrong with your god comin" down and talking to people? "Hey you know some of that stuff that"s in the book? I"m here to correct it." Matt Dillahunty -The god that christians believe in is amazingly STUPID!!!!"We have to rely on copies of copies of anonymous authors with no originals and the textural testimony to a miracle for example, there"s no amount of reports, anecdotal reports that is sufficient to justify in believing that actually happened as reported. And anything that would qualify as a god would clearly understand this and if it wanted to clearly convey this to people in a way that is believable would not be relying on ---TEXT--- to do so. And this to me is the nail in the coffin for christianity. The god that christians believe in is amazingly ---STUPID---!!! If it actually wants to achieve its goal by spreading its word to humanity by relying on text, by relying on languages that die off, by relying on anecdotal testimony, that"s not a pathway to truth. And anything that would qualify for a god would know this.which shows either god does not exist or doesn"t care enough about the people to understand the nature of evidence to actually present it. Now which of those two possibilities is accurate?" Matt Dillahunty Atheist Experience 21:49 with Tracie Harris zand Don Baker
Call starts at approx 47:30. Picks up after a long introduction 54:45 and really gets into it 1:03:30 - 1:11:30. Pay attention everybody to vidie #2 and how YOU as a christian can easily misinterpret YOUR bible which is one of the reasons why YOUR god would --- NEVER --- use text as a form of communication. Don Baker, one of the hosts here in the vidie also briefly mentions it. And he's 100% correct!

"Take DNA. It contains the amount of information equivalent to 1000 sets of Encyclopedia Britannica's put together." Oh its a lot more than that. But here"s you, and no offense "I"m a complete idiot. I don"t have an answer for that so therefore the solution MUST be god even though I have no idea what god is because I cannot explain god because the book I read, namely the bible in which gives false information because it has not been updated in at least 2,000 years with no true god to update it, so I"m completely lost, so therefore it MUST be god." No. What you say, just like every---single---good---scientist---says is "i don"t know." Because you don"t know. Nobody does. And perhaps nobody ever will.

"Without a God, in the equation, then it all must have come from nothing." What's wrong with that? Well Stephen Hawking, perhaps the smartest person who has ever lived, and his colleague has come up with an equation proving that something DOES come from nothing. And mathematical equations are the only facts that there are. 2 + 2 = 4 no matter which language you speak. Your god can be disproved no matter which language you speak. In other words your god was not needed to have created the known universe nor life here on earth.

"Or did it all just come together from an explosion, also known as the big bang?" That"s been proven fact.
But then again, you have to wonder where did your god come from which is even a bigger wonder for you to ask for yourself. To say that this "one" god created everything is silly. Who knows, it could have been gods, plural, aliens who are NOT gods or whatever who like to plant life the way we like to plant trees. You say "I don"t know." Because nobody does. Especially and think about this" it is known that there are super massive black hole at the center of every single galaxy. And according to Stephen Hawking there are an estimated 125 billion galaxies in this universe. So that"s 125 billion black holes just at the centers, at least. And black holes are nothingness. There haven"t even been 125 billion people EVER here on planet earth. So YOUR god cares more, a lot more for black holes, nothingness, that he does about the entire human race. Think about it.

I"m out of space.
Debate Round No. 1


My opponent states that he believes that there have been no tests to prove that God exists.
I addressed this issue in my first argument saying that there was no physical evidence for God but there are some good cases for him. i gave three of them in my first argument, none of which he has addressed. Even though I am a Christian, this debate is not titled, " Is Christianity the true religion, " It is titled, "Is God real," We can totally have a debate about that issue but that is an entirely different subject. All I have to demonstrate is that there is a God out there. So all of my opponents arguments against Christianity will be disregarded for this debate. Mine will too, as I myself did not realize that I was doing the same thing until now. But I would love to debate about Christianity another time, now is not the time.
Now to my opponents first argument not regarding Christianity. I brought up DNA. If it takes an intelligent person years to put together even one encyclopedia, then would it be fair to say that it takes an intelligent being to produce the equivalent of over 1000 sets of encyclopedia's put together. All I said was that this could point to something other than chance. You said faith is 100% ridiculous but wouldn't it take A LOT of faith to believe that this amount of information was arranged perfectly from an explosion.
The Big Bang is not proven fact. It is currently bounded by 4 scientific laws. The law of conservation of energy. The law of conservation of mass. The law of biogenesis. And finally Newton's first law of motion. Not to mention the incredibly low chance of the whole explosion coming together. Let me address one part of the whole thing. The part where life comes from non-life. The chance of the SIMPLEST life form coming from dead matter under the perfect temperature, the perfect arrangement of chemicals, the perfect density, and the perfect surrounding is equivalent to drawing a royal flush in poker 19 times in a row. 19 TIMES. Most people don't even get a royal flush in poker in their lifetime, much less draw one. And that is just under those perfect conditions which probably hardly ever occur. AND that is assuming that matter got there in the first place. That is assuming that those 4 scientific laws were all jokes. How can you believe a theory, but not believe 4 scientific laws?
Steven Hawking tries to show how something can come from nothing. He makes the following quote:
"Because there is such a law as gravity the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is why we have something rather than nothing. Why the universe exists, why we exist."
This argument is a good example of circular reasoning. John Lennox, another philosopher points out that there is not one, not two, but three errors of logic contained in that single statement all of which boils down to circular reasoning. Hawking's is basically saying that the universe exists because it needed to exist and therefore created itself. As it can be seen this reasoning leads in a circle. You see, it would be like me saying this. If I tell you that America makes the best food in the world, because no food has ever been better, you would look at me and say I haven't proven anything and you'd be right. All I have done is restated the question making it sound convincing. But although we don't immediately realize it, Hawking's is doing the same thing here.
Another issue with this logic. Gravity only exists if matter exists. But if there was nothing, then where was the gravity? How can Hawking's make such a claim?
Now to my opponents final point. Who created God? To this question I will use the following reasoning.
P1 Everything which has a beginning has a cause
P2 The universe has a beginning
C Therefore, the universe has a cause

The universe has a beginning, and therefore needed a cause. In other words it could not have created itself. Something outside of it must have created it. God, unlike the universe had no beginning and therefore did not need a cause. Asking who created God is a loaded question. The answer is simply no one. In addition, according to Einstein's general relativity which has overwhelming evidence supporting it, time is linked to space and matter. So time itself had a beginning and therefore had a cause. God, by definition is the creator of the universe and is therefore the creator of time. God is not bound by his own creation, he is not bounded by the time dimension.
Even with a God out of the equation I still have the right to turn the question you just asked me back around on you. Who created the universe? You have to address how all 4 scientific laws are false.

Sources used:

Another thing, I tried to watch the videos you put in your argument, but they all said unavailable.


OK well if you want to prove that god is real, then we shall ignore faith and the bible because they do not prove your god.
Absolutely the big bang is proven fact. - Cern 2017 The Big Bang Machine - New Science Documentary 2017 - Back to the Big Bang: Inside the Large Hadron Collider
And there"s several hundred documentaries on this and I certainly can produce them if you"d like.

"The part where life comes from non-life. The chance of the SIMPLEST life form coming from dead matter under the perfect temperature, the perfect arrangement of chemicals, the perfect density, and the perfect surrounding is equivalent to drawing a royal flush in poker 19 times in a row. 19 TIMES." According to what? You? How would you know? What grade of imbecilic single celled organism, sorry organism grade of moron + skunk perfume class of battery powered easy bake oven jesus jujitsu hi karate nuns pep rally class did you graduate from to come up with that figure? Now I want who said that, where you got if from, the exact website from where you got it from, the date it was stated,
"Most people don't even get a royal flush in poker in their lifetime" I"ve got 6 you total moron. And I"ve seen two, yes that"s right, two dealt within ONE hand. Even better and this is coming from a machine in which is supposed to be random (yeah right), I was dealt a royal flush and then I was bumped to another table and the very next hand a person was dealt a straight flush A,2,3,4,5,. So get a clue on what your poker odds are. Wow if I was to get you in a game of poker, I"d take all of your chips before you were even to have sat down to the game. Pathetic.
"Steven Hawking tries to show how something can come from nothing." It really would help if you would have done even the slightest bit of research, just the slightest bit. But nah, that"s far too difficult for you. Right at the very second link is"
"In his 1988 book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking had seemed to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe. But in the new text, co-written with American physicist Leonard Mlodinow, he said new theories showed a creator is "not necessary".
The Grand Design, an extract of which appears in the Times today, sets out to contest Sir Isaac Newton's belief that the universe must have been designed by God as it could not have been created out of chaos.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
And by gum you can also watch this video which explains everything so perfectly to you. - Stephen Hawking"s Grand Design . Did God Create the Universe Full Episode. 18:00, 21:30 (very fascinating), 26:00, 32:30!!!!!

"The universe has a beginning," Regardless, suppose as you say that the big bang is wrong. That means according to you that the universe always has existed. Because you have in no way proven your god. "Something outside of it must have created it. God," That"s not an answer because there is not test, no demonstrations, no declarations that can prove your god. Its still "I"m an idiot. I don"t have any answers. I"m truly unwilling to search for any answers. I cannot prove the bible to be true. I believe I have faith in christianity but in no way possible can I prove that faith in my god of christianity is true, therefore I shall be an absolute moron and plunk down all my chips on a poker and try to bluff my opponent when I have nothing, and wow tick tock tick tock I see that my opponent has read my tells exceptionally well because he does know what I am talking about and I don"t and damn I shouldn"t have bluffed when I have no evidence and I should know better, a lot better, and damn the showdown reveals that as always I am beat."
"Asking who created God is a loaded question. The answer is simply no one." Where and how did yah dig that one up from sparky? Wow and you cannot prove that either. Just like you cannot even prove your god exists. That"s strike one and two. If I see a strike three I will immediately end this debate without thinking twice. You have thus far presented absolutely no evidence, none, to prove your god is real, awe f--k it, let"s call it for what it really is - exists. No one ever has unto this date in time. If they were to be able to, then its really quite simple" this person(s) would be instant quadrillionaires on this planet, and the only ones. Also YOUR god would be the only god worshiped and idolized, bowed down to and worshiped. Also YOUR god would be splashed all over every single media circuit possible" every internet hookups, all TV outlets, all newspapers, all billboards etc etc etc will 0 letup. So why hasn"t this happened? Its because---there---is---no---proof---of---your---god"s---existence/---being---real. Pe-ri--od.

Now moving on from what you stated in the previous argument that was not gotten to"

"And if DNA is that complicated, can you even imagine the rest of the world?" Oh absolutely yes. That"s with ease. You really should watch National Geographic"s "One Strange Rock" new series. Its on every Monday at 10:00PM and they repeat each show every Monday at any rate. And here"s a video that has interviews with those that starred in it as well as the makers of it. And you probably, as the matter of fact am 100% sure you don"t get is that ever since oxygen has been introduced to earth on a mega scale, it has remained at its constant rate at 20.65%. It is the only gas known that hasn"t risen or plummeted dramatically over the eons. If oxygen goes below a certain amount (i do not know what that is) all life as we know it dies. If the oxygen level rises above that leven (I do not know what that level is), one strike of a match would incinerate the earth. So what keeps that oxygen level at that precious level? The answer isn"t god. The answer is life itself. Life creates life. Life destroys life. Life maintains life. The earth IS in itself a living organism. Watch this at 22:30. It may open your eyes. Nah as you only pay attention to yourself. - National Geographic's "One Strange Rock" Discussion. Another thing the series point out is that if the asteroid that destroyed the dinosaurs appeared one second later, the earth would have not gone into nuclear winter meltdown and the dinosaurs would have survived and you and I would not be here. The reason? As it was, the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs hit a super dense stockpile of sulfur and thus BANG!

"How can it be chance?" Wow. How does your hair grow? How does a tree know when its spring and to sprout its flowers and or grow its leaves and or grow its branches? How do you know how to wrap a bandage around a cuit? If you were not told that slums were not OK to go into would you still take the chance to go into them? How did you take the chance to believe in YOUR god? Certainly someone MUST have corrupted and sweetened the pot in ordered you to do as such. How are nearly every---single---basketball games blown by the refs? How does each team in them have what"s called "runs"? Etc etc etc. Wow. How are cards dealt? How do cherries pop up in a slot machine? How are you the village idiot to have your face completely different from all others so when someone makes a sketch of you the entire city knows who you are, but not before? All of those as simpleton chance.
"Nothing cannot produce something" OK I"m not going to argue with you on this point again. IF you mention it again, I will completely ignore you. "so I don't see how this explosion could have occurred." Well actually but your definition, you don"t see how ---ANY--- (explosions) occur. "This world calls for an intelligent designer, not chance." Really? According to what? You? How would you know? You are still in high shcool with a high school edumacationl and in-tell-igence that flaps his high horse chicken wings that does not know how to simply say "I don"t know" because you don"t know and you certainly guess at best.
My second argument supports that there is no god. There doesn"t need to be a god to set ANYTHING in motion. The end. I"m not going to bite into that one because it is ultimately confusing.
"P2 Because the universe exists, it must have a cause of existence" How do you know it "exists"?
"P3 Because nothing cannot produce something," OK done" bye...
Debate Round No. 2


Let me just start by saying the chance of drawing a royal flush in poker is 0.000154 percent chance, but that is completely aside from the point. Let me give some cold hard facts of the chance of evolution occurring.
1. The chance of life forming from non-life is 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. That is 10 with 40,000 zeros after it

2. The chance of the universe coming into existence by chance is 1 in 400 quadrillion

3. The chance of a simple protein coming from dead matter is 1 in 1.28 with 10,175 zeros after it

4. The chance of the earth by itself coming into existence from nothing is 1 in 700 quintillion

5. "The chance of evolution occurring is equivalent to the chance of a blindfolded person throwing a pebble into outerspace, knocking down a satellite that then crashes down on a target on a van on a highway"
Even in a billion years, that's never going to happen

Another thing about evolution. What about mutualism? Mutualism, is a relationship between two organisms where both benefit. An example of this is between the oriental sweetlips and the blue streak wrasse. The Oriental sweetlips is one of the few fish that has teeth. However it must get them cleaned otherwise they would rot and fall out. So, the blue streak wrasse cleans the oriental sweetlips teeth by eating all of the plaque on it. This gives the blue streak wrasse a good meal, and at the same time, the oriental sweetlips gets its teeth cleaned, thus causing both to benefit. Evolution states that one life form came into existence from dead matter. This process by itself is impossible but that is aside the point. For now let's just say it happened. That life form reproduced creating every species of animals we see today. In order for evolution to be true, this case of mutualism would have to have come across by chance. Basically, the oriental sweetlips would have to let a random fish swim in its mouth without eating it, and intuitively know that it is just coming to clean its teeth. At that exact same moment, the blue streak wrasse would have to independently decide to swim in a random fish's mouth without the fear of being eaten. Remember, if none of these things happen at the exact same moment, the process won't work. That is just one of millions of examples of mutualism. There are just too many of these happy coincidences for evolution to be possible.

Are you absolutely sure there is no God? If not, then is the chance evolution is possible greater than the chance God exists? If not, why not?
You also haven't responded to any of my arguments I presented in the first round.


OK I'm not even going to pay ANY more attention to you. "Let me just start by saying the chance of drawing a royal flush in poker is 0.000154 percent." Really? According to what imbecile? You? How would you know? What grade of teeny bopper high school that you are clearly stuck in and will ---never--- graduate from as your overgrown compass of always pointing north into a pile of shifting blah blah black sheep made up excuses and clearly lied about to have yah come up with that one snookums? There are so so sooooooo many faults within that figure that your hand grande weight loss program to your hard boiled brain that you cannot possibly figure it out, that you are a true joke unto the mating call of your own noose. Since you both lied about it and invented excuses in a meager attempt to gain attention from me in which didn't work AT ALL, because I truly hate it when people, especially teeny boppers, have to flat out lie and invent excuses for ANYTHING, when all they have to do is simply look THINGS UP, in which you clearly DID NOT DO, which truly infuriates me, which means that without a doubt you lie and invent excuses about your god, bible and religion, this debate has instantly come to a close. Bye. Sheesh.
Debate Round No. 3


Did you even read my argument? I gave flat-out chances of evolution occurring and the sources that go along with them. We can ignore the argument that the chance of evolution occurring is equivalent to drawing a royal flush 19 times in a row. We can throw that one out of the debate. But you still have to respond to the 3 arguments I made in the first round, and the 6 I made last round.
Aside from insulting me, the only real thing you pointed out was that I didn't look anything up. For one, that isn't even a real argument against any of my points. Two, I did look things up and provided direct links to my sources.
You haven't responded to essentially any of my main arguments this entire debate. Until doing so, I don't have anything to post.


No. I told you flat out that I"m not giving you another chance. Can't you read? Do you know what "reading" is? You know. Words. Sentences. Such is the typical so-called christian in which there is no such a thing as being a christian in the first place. Let this be a lesson to you that when you flat out lie to someone, its all over. And if you flat out lie to your teachers, I 100% guarantee you that unless you are a teachers pet, you WILL get an instant F and they will not even think twice and not even read through your s--t, just as I will not. And if you lie to your friends and loved ones, then you will NOT have friends and loved ones, just as you probably almost certainly don't. And the thing about it is, you can't even apologize. And how f--king dare you say that I didn't pay any attention to YOUR arguments when you have NO evidence to present because what you presented cannot be accepted as truth because there's NOTHING to go on so how can it be true if NOT proven, tested, declared or demonstrated because there's NO SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY that would state its true, just as your god isn't? All you have are pathetic wee little hen pecking websites in which would NEVER hold up against them. AND you totally ignored what I presented to you, you f--king prick. So how dare you. Now GOODBYE.
Debate Round No. 4


I presented direct links to the evidence for my arguments and if you don"t attack the arguments, at least attack the websites credibility. Since you have done neither of those, I don"t have anything else to post. All you ha e done is attacked me personally but not any of my arguments.


OK I decided that I am going to have fun with this. Instead of being totally p**sed off at you, in which the entire world would be, and since it is blatantly clear that you have no genuine friends or loved ones and all you are doing is seeking attention, I am going to degrade, humiliate and dehumanize you since you are simply as stupid and as ignorant as they come. I've debated a good 1,000 or so people here on and you are by far the dumbest, most idiotic stone cold liar, who thinks its perfectly OK to lie, knows he lies, and thinks he can get away with it.
Since I get to speak last, and for the FINAL TIME YOU ARROGANT PRICK when you lie as you did, NO ONE IS GOING TO PAY ANY ATTENTION TO YOU. "Let me just start by saying the chance of drawing a royal flush in poker is 0.000154 percent." is a stone cold lie. And you the all self important ego stuck up biggety lice filled manure spread of cow chirps goes on with his merry ole day like nothing has happened. You didn't bother to take into ANY consideration what game of poker was being played. How many players there were, how many cards had been dealt, what cards were showing, if any, etc etc e tc that figure you presented is NOT a set figure among anything, just as those websites you presented are NOT in any possible way set figures.

Now why should I answer a single f--king thing of yours, especially when I did, BUT YOU LIKE THE TYPICAL CHRISTIAN, YOU CAN'T READ, when you answered NOTHING of what I posted you TOTAL 100% ARROGANT PIECE OF CRAP?

Now for the final time ---every---single website you presented is completely worthless and is easily discredited, just like your god. Why? Because AS STATED there's nothing to compare it with. NOTHING in their context has been discovered, tested, declared or demonstrated. So how do they have anything to compare it to in order to come up with any---type---of---figure? Absolutely no scientific community of merit will back them up. NO ONE.

'You are truly a nightmare. Continue to behave as you are and see where it gets yah. It will continue to lead you with 0 genuine friends and loved ones. But I guess that's what you want.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by SHARINGISCARINGg 3 years ago

Yet again, you are wrong. Why do you think that God sent Jesus to die for us? Just because he felt like it? No. He sent Jesus so that we can live with him in Heaven for eternity. Now, when God judges us, Satan is our prosecutor, and Jesus is our defendant. But, Jesus also takes the place of us. Now Jesus is the one being prosecuted. The devil has no way of going against that, because Jesus is perfect. The only way we can lose is if we do not accept Jesus. If we are asking to go to Hell. God loves us so much that he wants to honor our wishes. If you want to go to Hell, then go to Hell. It's not that hard. But if you want to go to Heaven, "Those who believe and are baptized shall be saved." That's all you gotta do.
So, Christianity is not all of this stuff that you put in your comment, it is "believe and be baptized."
Posted by judaism 3 years ago
That's because he's full of hate, without HaShem's love and guide, one cannot be free.
Posted by passwordstipulationssuck 3 years ago
Hey backwardseden, have you won a debate yet? oh no, you haven't what a shame.
Posted by judaism 3 years ago
I noted that backwardseden claims that the Bible does not mention the Big Bang. That is partially true. Kabbalistic literature does, including that of Rabbi Nachmanides. See his commentary on the subject, currently, I am writing an article about it for publication.
Posted by judaism 3 years ago
The BOP backwardseden, is on you, and those who reject that we all have purpose.
Posted by Dinis 3 years ago
Con provides normal evidence, while pro"s evidence is superior in explanation and evidence. That is to say, if you ignore how much Con degrades anyone who opposes them.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
Oh and oh yeah, you can chuck that sore povery sap christianity bit to the dumpsters that you pretend to be because you in fact are not. In fact its practically pretty near a 100% impossibility as this christ figure, there's no proof for him having ever existing, just like your god, and this christ orders you to dump your family, yeah you in beling the trus scum that you are probably did that, and this christ figure also orders you to dump ALL OF YOUR possessions in which there's 0% chance of you EVER being able to do that and then for you to follow him. I'm so very glad I made your day better. Please do not post me again unless you have something intelligent to say.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
@chokerboy12345 - So says the mighty He-Man and the masters of the universe. Oh sorry She-Ra who pretends to be 33 but is really a teeny bopper still stuck in high school with a limited dunce cap meow mix intelligence and edumacation who is obviously and blatantly crying inside because he has no friends or loved ones. Poor wittle wost wosey wed you.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
Wow con is looking weak, he is getting raped by pro.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by passwordstipulationssuck 3 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 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: Conduct goes to pro because con's conduct was abhorrent. many ad hominems. arguments goes to pro because pro came out on top in the cosmological argument.
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con called Pro "stupid" in the last round. This is poor conduct.

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