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

Argument for god

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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: 9/10/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,215 times Debate No: 25523
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (2)




I propose a debate on an argument for existence of a god.

In my opponenets first post he/she should provide one argument for the existence of a god, along with a definition that follows this argument. This debate will be on that one argument.

Give me whatever you got: Kalam, TAG, Ontological, what ever you got I'll attempt to disprove it.

There is 4 rounds and 5000 character limit.
Dropped points infers conceding of point.
Sources can be put in comments so as to save room.

I hope to get a challenging debate and wish my opponent good luck and quick wit.


Ok I will start by saying that I am not religious in any way and that I think all religions are just ways to control people, I hope that one day they are all made illegal.
But I do not think you can possibly put forward any evidence, not even a shred that can disprove the existence of an intelligent being having created the universe, or even just earth and the first living organisms on it.
Infact there is more evidence to point towards an intelligent creator than to say its all random chance, such as laws, the laws of physics that are a mathematical rule book governing all things that also mean from the original creation on the universe someone with infinite knowledge of the rules could have planed every single movement of every atom with the one action. Until other intelligent life came along by the massively slim chance that we did which is odd in its self.
You will also probably say if there is a greater who created him? Well before you do I obviously cannot answer that. Can you answer this question. If there was a big bang where did all of the energy come from? And if it came from another dimension when was that dimension created? And so on, it's impossible to disprove the existence of of a great powerful intelligent being but the simpl buitiful nature of physics and mathematics may just show the existence of an artist.
Debate Round No. 1


I'd like to start this by thanking my opponent for giving me this chance to debate him.
I'd also like to ask my opponent where he stands on this subject, are you atheist or theist?

Now onto the debate.

I would completely agree with you if you had said it is impossible to put forward evidence that
something created the universe, but you decided to use the word intelligent so I will have to disagree.

For instance, what intelligent being would make such things as black holes?
What kind of intelligence would think that using the same pipe for food and oxygen is a good idea?
Why do all beings not have a similar ability to sponges or algae in attaining food, then we
could eat very easily and it would almost remove starvation from the world.
Why is it that alot of attributes we show are inferior to many animals?

But I digress, I can agree it is impossible to disprove a creator. What I cannot agree is that it
is impossible to disprove a definition or personal idea of a creator, and if your willing to give
me one I can work at that.

You said I would probably ask who created this being, but I would not. I would ask you how this
Being came into existence, but the usual reply is that it has always been.
All I ask of you is that you posit a logical argument for the existence of a god.

You ask where all the energy from the big bang came from, I ask you what energy?
In our universe the total energy equals 0. Ill allow wikipedia to give you a summary of this since I
don't fully understand the concept.

"The zero-energy universe hypothesis states that the total amount of energy in the universe is
exactly zero. When the energy of the universe is considered from a pseudo-tensor point of view,
zero values are obtained in the resulting calculations. The amount of positive energy in the form
of matter is exactly canceled out by the negative energy in the form of gravity."

What I do understand about this is that it would allow the universe to come into existence the same
way that virtual particles do. Virtual particles only stay in existence for an inversely proportional
amount of time based on the amount of positive energy in them. Since the universe's energy
is 0 it could always exist. Thus allowing for an Ex nihilo existence.

I believe the "simpl buitiful nature of physics and mathematics" could only show an artist of
a lower intelligence level then most of humanity.
If you disagree please show me why.



I will break your argument down into peace's and I am certain that I can make it look a joke.

Part one I did not state that an intelligent being created humanity or any creature on the planet, evolution did that but I will still defend against your arguments as if I did.
what intelligent life form would create....
Black holes? we do not fully understand them yet and I do not fully understand this as an argument I mean why wouldn't an intelligent being create them? maybe they are a mistake in the code but I doubt it I think we will find out that they are the most simple structures in the universe.
all your other questions have a simple answer. well why would evolution let these things happen? you are almost defending the existence of a god with your questions an intelligent being may have set human beings up not to be perfect but to amuse himself for all we know.

you can disprove any personal idea of a creator. ok disprove a monster from another dimension made from energy only found in the other dimension, he exists in a form and dimension we could not explain using words nor mathematics. he alters our dimension using black holes because as they bend space time they rip the wall of our dimension allowing him to force energy into our dimension. the first time he did this was the big bang, thus all matter in our dimension and universe was put here buy an intelligent being. disprove that.

next you used a theory the zero-energy universe hypothesis which is simply a theory its not fact and nobody would claim it to be so I cancel that from the debate. unless im allowed to use my theory that god exists as fact :)

last but most importantly you stated that the simple beauty of physics and mathematics and how they collide so well could only show the existence of an artist with a lower intelligence than most of humanity, that is a strange view to take and makes the assumption that simplicity is worse than complexity. ask any Mathematician or physicist if he agrees with you on that one or maybe more importantly if an artist would.
Debate Round No. 2


I will accept that you have forfieted this debate based on the fact that you have not followed the rules set forth when the debate began.

You put forward more then one argument.

You did not define god.

I gave you a chance to follow the second one when I stated that If you give me a definition of god I can attempt to disprove it, you strawmaned this by saying that I said I can disprove any personal god then preposing a definition that is illogical and irrefutable.

Since you broke two rules I laid out for this debate you have forfieted.


no sain human being will agree with you lol
Debate Round No. 3


You misspelt sane.

And Iv no idea what your talking about. You mean they wont agree that you broke the rules of the debate?


I did not break the rules you just cannot argue back when I am so right you asked for a personal god I gave you one you tried to back me into the corner of say a Christian god when that was not the argument I entered. You want an easy ride and I will not give you one, you cannot prove that an intelligent being did not create the universe just like i cannot prove it did but you wanted to try.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ruskaiye 4 years ago
I would like to read the rest of the posts left here, but atm I just don't have the time, so instead I will say what I came to say.

Although I could not differ whether there is or isn't a god, I can say that if one exists, there is only one (Not being ignorant, just going on belief.) How I can state this though, is by discussing the beginning, whether it being the Big Bang or a God, it is the beginning. So... From here I rule that all religion follows at least one similar rule correct? And basically, all religions point to the same substantial being which would be a God or higher power. This "Being" being the beginning can mean that in turn, all religions are but the same, misconstrued by humanity to mean what they want it to. (We all have our beliefs right?) Thus, leaving all religions pointing to the same idea "The Beginning" or "One" in right of way too mathematics.

Coming in towards the Zero energy hypothesis/theory, I've never really heard of the zero part, but thinking about it, and coming around with the knowledge I do pertain with black holes, I can at least give this a shot.
Black holes are here to suck up what is visible energy to us, what contains a mass. When they do, they rip off every electron around the atom of any type of mass there is, leaving you with a zero mass atom; this could tie into "Zero energy/dark matter." If when black holes take in all the visible energy there is, there will be none left, leaving us with only dark matter; creating an imbalance. I believe that if this were too occur, we could foresee that of a new big bang, a very violent implosion followed by that of the massive explosion creating our universe today.

-Please send me your thoughts and regards to this.
--Thank you for the great read, and the wonderful thoughts.
Posted by Manbearpanda 4 years ago
Our debate was never to do with a god's existence or gods' existences; you were supposed to be defending your assertion that positive atheists believe in at least one god, but you failed to properly form the resolution, even though I had given it to you verbatim.

Reported for libel yet again. I have never misquoted you. And you 'threw the first stone' when you failed to understand what 'atheism' means and asserted that I was wrong.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
***There is no evidence that I was squabbling. I tried to get MBP to debate God in a formal debate --You should be thanking me for that because it is what you wanted. --That is obviously not squabbling. If you try to report me, your report will be ignored. You need evidence of hate, profanity, harassment etc. Nothing that I have said qualifies as that.

6- You said I am just as bad as MBP because I have continued this squabble.

***Again, there is zero evidence that I am squabbling. And your claim that I am just as bad as MBP is unwarranted. He has used profanity. I have not. He has said hateful and insulting things. I have not. He has misquoted me. I have not misquoted him etc. If you look at all the debates in which we exchange words, you will notice that he threw the first stone. I was only responding to him.

7- You said that you are not taking either of our sides.

***That is very disingenuous of you to say. Your post was mainly critical of me, not MBP. You clearly took his side.

- - - - -

The first comment that MBP made, about a toddler being able to refute arguments for God, was a rude statement and was obviously meant to provoke theists, like me. What was I expected to do, ignore it? If you don"t want people to say inappropriate things on your debates, then you should have showed some integrity and called MBP out on this as soon as he said it. But you waited until I said something as a response to him which you apparently considered inappropriate, then criticized me. That is a double standard.

Bottom Line: You made many unwarranted assertions about me. You made serious criticisms of me for which you provided no evidence. That is unacceptable.

Look. I respect you. You don"t use profanity or hateful language. So even though I have not posted any comments on your debate worthy of concern, I will comply with your wish and I will refrain from responding to anything that MBP says on any of your debates.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
I just saw that your message section was blocked. I don't know why you did that, but whatever, that is your right. I'll post it here. In the future, if you do not want me to post a comment like this on your debate, then I suggest you allow for messages. Otherwise I have no choice.

1- You said that you do not want a petty, hateful argument taking place in the comment section of your debate.

***I asked MBP to debate me about God and I cited an argument about God on this site. That is not petty or hateful. It is not squabbling. You do not have justification for saying such a thing.

2- You said I brought up previous problems with MBP and showed that my reason for coming here was to harass him into a debate, and that I should grow up.

***You were mistaken. Read my comments again. I never brought up previous problems. My comment pertained to his comment on this debate. And I never said anything harassing, or anything to provoke the statement "grow up."

3- You said he has a right to file a complaint against me.

***You provided no argument for this. I have used no profanity, insults, or hatred. If you make a claim, you have to back it up. You did not. In my complaint to the president of this site, I am citing over 20 quotes of hatred from MBP. And you provided no example of me "bitching" at him.

4- You said that I should leave the site if I can"t deal with the fact that he won"t debate me.

***Maybe that"s what you would do, but I really enjoy this site and I will not let a troll influence me to leave the site.

5- You said that I continued a squabble with MBP on your site, and that you would report both of us is we continued.

Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
muzebeak, I am currently forming a response to your last post. I will not post it here though. I will send it to you via messsage. Okay?

Posted by Manbearpanda 4 years ago
Then you're almost as monumentally stupid as he. Grow up.
Posted by muzebreak 4 years ago
You do realise im not going to take either of your sides right? Im contending you both need to grow up and get over it.
Posted by Manbearpanda 4 years ago
Muzebreak, you're right that FaultyCriticalThinkingMachine needs to grow up, but wrong about the 'squabbling'. I do not squabble. This child continuously asserts that some atheists believe in at least one god and I simply point out his idiocy.

If I were you, I would simply let him cry and spam all he wants and report him. If the owner of this site has any sense whatsoever, he will be banned soon enough.
Posted by muzebreak 4 years ago

I did not, and will never, say that people should not debate in the comments section. That would be absurd considreing the intention behind this site. What I am going to, and will always, say is that I do not want some petty argument over who hates who more, or whatever crap it is you and ManBearPanda can't get over, in the comments section of my debate.

I am not ManBearPanda, so I will not squabble with you. What I will do is tell you that you should grow up. You showed your intentions when you brought up your previous problems with ManBearPand and showed your reason for coming here was to attempt to harass him into a debate.

If anyone, in this instance, has a right to file a complaint it is him. I will also tell you to get over your self, I'v seen arguments between the two of you almost everywhere I go on this site where you both constantly bitch at the other because they insulted you.

If you can't deal with someone insulting you then I'm sorry to say you wont do to well in the real world. And if you can't deal with the fact that he wont debate you then just leave the site all together or ignore him.

You are just as bad a ManBearPanda in that you have both clearly continued this squabble, and if you wish to do so further then do not do it in the comments of my debates or I will report any such comments from the both of you.

I suggest you either cut off contact with ManBearPanda or keep sinking to what you would contest is his and he would contest is your level.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
Response to muzebreak

1- You did not seem to understand what I was saying in my comment to wiploc. You defended your win. But I never criticized your win. I merely said that wiploc should have provided a reason for his vote. He should have said exactly what you said in your last post.

2- I am not starting a "squabble" with ManBearPanda in the comment section of your debates. I formed a response to him relevant to this debate and to his comment. This is my right.

But I agree with your apparent implication that debaters should not carry on one debate in the comment section of another. That is why I have tried to get MBP to debate me in a formal debate. He refuses, claiming that he will not debate anyone because he cannot find anyone matching his intelligence. Maybe you were unaware of this. I've tried to get him to debate, and I keep on trying, but he won't do it. So for now my responses to him are posted in the comment sections. I'm sorry if this annoys you. It annoys me too. If you want it to stop, then try to urge MBP to debate. But do not blame me for what he provokes.

By the way, I am following through to report MBP for harassment and abuse. It might be of interest to you to look at the insulting things he has said about me and other members of this site. And when he's gone, you won't have to worry about potential "squabbles" in your debates, and neither will I.

3- Maybe I will debate you on God one day. I'm a little busy with school right now so I have not had much time to debate lately, but I appreciate the offer and I certainly intend to debate God's existence on this site, either with you or whomever. Thank you.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by Sojourner 4 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Con, since Pro didn't really put forth a logical arugment. S&G to Con for obvious reasons. Conduct a tie - although Con claimed a rules violation due to multiple arguments, I couldn't find even one. Sources - tie, no sources given.