The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
2 Points

Atheism Provides the more Rational and Realistic Worldview than Theism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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: 8/5/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,011 times Debate No: 36396
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (3)




Important definitions are provided below:

Atheism - Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. (

Theism - Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world. (

Rational - Consistent with or based on reason; logical. (

Realistic - Tending to or expressing an awareness of things as they really are. (

Worldview - The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world. (

God - A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. (

Exist - To have actual being; be real. (

We will be debating to whether or not the existence of God is likely or unlikely based on accurate peer-reviewed evidence as well as logically sound arguments. If God is not likely to exist than atheism provides the more rational and realistic worldview. By the same token, if God is likely to exist than theism provides the more rational and realistic worldview. If there is no compelling evidence or arguments for God's existence, then God is unlikely to exist, meaning that belief in a God is unjustified, irrational, and unrealistic. The burden of proof is on Con to show that a God exists because the theist holds the positive claim. I would prefer one to accept the definitions above before accepting the debate. I would also like to point out that I do not want one to negate the resolution through semantic ploys. I want a genuine believer to argue and show his/her evidence and reasoning for an actual, observable, and provable God. First round is for acceptance. I hope to have a stimulating and worthwhile debate with Con.


I accept the debate and look forward to the discussion. Good luck, and let us begin.
Debate Round No. 1


The burden of proof is on Con to show that God is likely to exist; I will refute his evidence and arguments once they are posted. The most prominent reason for my disbelief in a God is that there is no compelling evidence for one. The following arguments will elucidate why the existence of a God is unlikely (I have copy-pasted these arguments from my previous debate because I put alot of time to write them myself):

Religions and God are Man-Made
Although the debate is centered on the existence of a deity, I would like to discuss various religions to show that their teachings are irrational and therefore the idea of a God who created it is as well. I challenge Con to express to the readers and myself which religion he holds to be true if any so that I can address his beliefs more specifically.

When it comes to the truth of religions, there can be only two possibilities. Either all religions are false or one religion is true. All religions cannot possibly be true because they all conflict one another (non-conflicting religions can be true as well but I find it unlikely for anyone to argue for this proposition). If God truly wanted the world to know which religion is true then why not just come out now and show it, in a time where we can actually record miracles? Christopher Hitchens logic on miracles is quite indisputable when he stated, “What is more likely? That all natural order is suspended, or that a Jewish mink should tell a lie?” If you do in fact believe you have witnessed a miracle please ask yourself what is more likely: that the natural order of the universe has been suspended in your favor, or that you have made a mistake? Either way it seems that God is taking great strides to hide himself from reputable scientists. God also seems to not care at all about a human consensus towards religions, theistic evidence, and even interpretations of scripture. It is what one would expect if you assume these holy texts to be man-made.

All miracles, stories, and myths from holy books are indoctrinated into children at an early age. If you have Christian parents, you are most likely to be a Christian if you have Hindu parents then you are most likely to be a Hindu, and so on. It seems as though one will stick to the beliefs given to them at the very early stages of their lives and hold them faithfully until death. I do not believe one will ever find the correct path to truth in this manner. Skepticism and logical inquiry is the greatest path to truth in both science and life. Rene Descartes once said: "I know how much we are prone to err in what affects us, and also how much the Judgments made by our friends should be distrusted when these Judgments [are] in our favor." If you want to truly know whether your religion is true, in an unbiased and genuine fashion then please apply the outsider test ( to your personal religion. This test basically asks one to question their own religious evidence with the same amount of skepticism as you apply to other religions. If any rational person does this in a sincere manner, then they should find themselves at a loss to which religion to believe. Ideally, they should ultimately become skeptical of all religious beliefs and concede that scientific evidence is our best bet.

Evolution trumps Intelligent Design

Evolution through natural selection along with abiogenesis is the best theory with predictive power which explains how life could have begun, and how species develop over time. Intelligent design is the theory that the universe was designed by an intelligent being rather than a naturalistic process such as natural selection. In any case intelligent design cannot be considered as a scientific theory (like evolution and natural selection) because it does not meet the following criterion (

1. Consistent
2. Parsimonious (see Occam's Razor)
3. Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used in a predictive manner)
4. Empirically testable and falsifiable (potentially confirmable or disprovable by experiment or observation)
5. Based on multiple observations (often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments)
6. Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
7. Progressive (refines previous theories)
8. Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

It is impossible for anyone to disprove the proposition that God did create the universe with intelligent design. Therefore intelligent design is unfalsifiable by principle, rendering it an untestable and unscientific theory. Furthermore, if God did create all species with intelligent design than why didn’t he make them optimal beings? It seems that God supports poor design by allowing humans to choke from the same hole we breathe with. We have too many flaws in our design to have been made by a perfect all-loving God.

God Cannot be Omnipotent or Omnibenevolent in any Logical Sense

The omnipotence paradox is as follows: If a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do ( An example would be: Can God create a rock so massive that he cannot move it? If the answer is yes, then God is not all-powerful because he cannot move this rock. If the answer is no, then God is not all-powerful because he cannot create this rock. Either way it is not possible for God to be logically omnipotent, this means that an all-powerful God could not exist in a logical universe. One may argue that God transcends logic, but it is up to the theist to provide proof and evidence for such a wild assertion.

God cannot be omnibenevolent (all-loving, or infinitely good) as well. To put it plainly:

1) If an all-powerful and perfectly good God exists, then evil does not exist.

2) Evil exists.

3) Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good God does not exist.

You Must Believe This if you Believe in Evolution and God

If you believe in evolution then you should agree that humans have been evolving for thousands of years. Modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) have emerged around 200,000 years ago ( All scientific evidence points to our evolution and to an old earth. To believe in a theistic God one must believe that for 198,000 years, humans have been living in desperate conditions. High infant mortality rates, low life expectancies, constant threat of danger from predators, barbarism, savagery, death, and suffering. For 198,000 years God watched this with indifference, and only around 2,000 years ago he decides to step in and reveal himself in the less literate part of the world. It is much more likely that all religions are equal glimpses of the untrue, as all are man-made.

The Origins of the Universe is Unknown

Theists are glad to announce and proclaim that God is the creator of the universe. However no person can actually provide any proof of this claim. If God is the creator of the universe then who created God? If one can claim that God had no creator and he is eternal, then one can say the universe is eternal as well. According to Occam’s razor ('s_razor), since the universe is much simpler than a God, then the eternal Universe explanation is more likely to be true. In reality, nobody knows the true origin of the universe and therefore we must keep our possibilities open:

1) The universe and the Big Bang could have been created by completely naturalistic causes.

2) The Big Bang could have been created by uncaused causes. Uncaused causes seem to occur all the time through spontaneous quantum phenomena such as radioactive decay ( and quantum fluctuations (

3) The universe could have always existed.

4) God always existed, and created the universe.

Again, it is better to adopt the universe explanations as the universe is less complex then God and therefore more likely to be correct. It is up to Con to prove that (4) is more likely than all other possibilities.

The following questions are easily answered if you assume there is no God
No compelling evidence for any God has ever been presented to this day, if there was then there would be a consensus between atheists and theists. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good then why does he constantly do irrational things, things that can be easily explained if you assumed that they are man-made. There are millions of nonbelievers and people from different religions that are good and rational people. If God's doctrines truly do benefit mankind, then why doesn't God just pop up and prove his existence to all nonbelievers and believers in the wrong faith to finally progress the human condition? Why doesn't God seem to give any notable benefits to his "true" believers? Why doesn't God heal amputees? Why doesn't God stop religious wars and controversy and grant his followers their rightful peace? Why does God allow so much suffering in our world, to even starving and innocent children? Why does gratuitous evil exist? Why does God seem to spread his truth in the irrational manner of anecdotal evidence through holy books? The best and easiest answers to these questions are either that 1) God does not exist or 2) God does not care for humans (The third option is that God does care but does not have the power to intervene in human affairs. However this option must be discarded as the definition agreed upon includes an all-powerful God). Through all the arguments explained thusfar I find it much more likely that (1) is true. Since God is not likely to exist, atheism is the more rational and realistic worldview. I thank Con for accepting this debate and await his rebuttal.



I will be defending the Christian religion. I will instantly make the argument that because Christianity is the religion with the most followers, it is most likely to be the true religion, as if God does exist, surely His religion would involve the most people.

My opponent argues that religion is man-made. I completely agree, and am pleased we can immediately find common ground. However, I also believe that science is man-made. Scientists seek to discover the truth of the natural world, just as theists seek to discover the truth of the spiritual world.

My opponent says that not all religions can be true. I also agree. However, he continues on to say that not even one religion is true because he demands that God should prove himself by allowing us to record miracles.
3 out of 4 doctors believe miracles are happening today.
I argue that people in the medical field would understand the most about the science of the body, and when the majority of those physicians believe that God IS doing miracles today, how does this not meet the demands requested by my opponent? Is he willing to state that he understands more about the body than doctors, and that most of them are completely mistaken? If he is correct, we should immediately pull 73 percent of the doctors out of hospitals because they should not be operating on people if they truly show a lack of understanding of natural order.

I agree that every person should meet every religion with skepticism. Just because people are born into one religion, it is quite an injustice to assume that they will never become rational people who will look at their own religion with a logical mind. My opponent fails to realize just how many people convert to faiths different from their childhood.

Evolution is not a scientific theory because it belongs to the category of historical science. It cannot be proved or disproved, only speculated. The same is true with Intelligent Design. Neither are falsifiable, but both present models for explanations to how the world is. I argue that my opponent has hardly educated himself on Creation Science, and that he only speculates it upon the negative hearsay of evolutionists, which does not warrant a fair and unbiased viewpoint.

The Holy Scriptures do not attest to an Omnipotent God, so the logical paradox breaks down. The Bible attests to an Almighty God, who is complete in power and in control, but there is no reason to assume that His power must exist as a paradox.

My opponent claims that because evil exists, there is no God. I argue it is quite the opposite- evil exists, so there must be a God. You will never see any other species commit genocide. But humans have freewill, so they are able to produce evil acts. God exists as a Father, and those who call upon the Father can be loved, therefore, He is a loving God.

My opponent makes the fallacious claim that evolution is a fact, yet earlier he lists that a bold assertion is proof of a pseudo-science: "8. Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)" As I have already stated, I believe that my opponent is ignorant to Creation Science. However, even if evolution were true, only 2 percent of all humans in history existed before the birth of Christ, which shows that the religion of Christianity came at the perfect time to the human population increasing exponentially.

My opponent asserts that the origin of the universe is unknown and that no one can provide any proof for the claim, then demands that I must prove that God being eternal is the most likely solution. However, I shall attempt to appease him. I argue that not even the "simplest" part in the universe is indeed simple. From quantum mechanics to biology, everything is intricately complex. The Big Bang theory teaches less complexity leads to more complexity. In our present day observable universe, we see the complex breaking down, deteriorating. It is more likely that the universe started out with total stability and complexity from a perfect Creator, and from that time everything has been subject to the second law of thermodynamics.

My first proposal to the rationality of a theistic worldview rests on the earth's position in the universe.
The earth is located no more than one million light years away from the center of the universe. (with our known universe estimated at 93 billion light years across, this is dramatically close to the center.
"According to Hubble"s law, redshifts are proportional to the distances of the galaxies from us." We now know that the numerical values of these red shifts are quantized. (To give a picture, imagine a nucleus with stationary electrons at equal distances away from each other. Now switch the nucleus with our Milky Way galaxy and the electrons with other galaxies.) Our earth is is in a dignified position in the universe- the only position in this universe that can observe these quantized red shifts.
As I have put forth evidence from a theistic scientist, I anticipate that my opponent will deny this argument entirely. I demand that should my opponent reject this, he should counter it with a secular scientific article that directly disproves this claim. Specifically, he must disprove the quantized state of the red shifts, not merely supply a different model where the universe has no center. If he fails to do so, I argue that this is rational evidence for earth having a dignified place in the cosmos, and that it is more likely that we were created to be in the center rather than it being a coincidence. (It should also be noted that this disproves the Big Bang Theory).

My second proposal applies to the origin of language. Many have theorized how language began, but it's mysterious origin puzzles everyone who studies it. It is "the hardest problem in science." (Christiansen, M. H. and S. Kirby, 2003. Language evolution: the hardest problem in science? In M. H. Christiansen and S. Kirby (eds), Language Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1- 15. )
Studies of feral children (children raised in isolation, sometimes in the wilderness) show that after they have spent a significant time being isolated, after they have been discovered and brought back into civilization, they have generally remained cognitively impaired, they had difficulties in learning languages, and usually wished to return back to isolation.
Now imagine ancient mankind having no language at all. How should we believe that they created a language when modern humans have a difficulty in merely learning a language after significant time spent without knowing one?
I argue that this also implies it is more likely that a Creator endowed us with the gift of language, and that the first language was not likely to be man made. Now, after the initial language, it became easy to create other languages, which is why all modern languages come from past ones.

I feel as I have already given more than an adequate amount of material for my opponent to debate with, so I will wrap up this round. I applaud my opponent for rational and understandable reasons for his position, and I hope that I have challenged him as much as he as challenged me.
Debate Round No. 2


I thank Con for the rational perspective presented in his rebuttal. However, his evidence does not stand up to scrutiny as I will explain on a case by case basis.

Con: I will be defending the Christian religion...

Con slickly avoids the ad populum fallacy by using the word “likely” but his reasoning has serious consequences. By the same inductive reasoning I can conclude that because 99.9% of scientists believe in evolution, creationism science is not likely ( I am also quite confident that scientists are just more trustworthy and more reliable than a Christian as well.

Con: My opponent argues that religion is man-made...

I am pleased that you agree with me on this point and would informally assume that you do not believe your Bible was written by God. If this is the case, why believe in the scientifically testable portions of the Bible to be true, when man in that era had not the slightest idea of what was really going on? Con tries to lower down science to the level of religious doctrine by explaining the fact that both are man-made constructs. The plain and simple difference is that science has peer-reviewed rigorously tested evidence. If you have the sufficient equipment, you can test for yourself all the scientific theories (criteria for which are outlined in my round 2 post); evolution by the way is a scientifically testable theory, creationism is not (will extrapolate later on). You also imply that scientists cannot discover truth in a spiritual sense; I would refer you to Neurotheology for the most coherent scientific explanations of spiritual phenomena (

Con: My opponent says that not all religions can be true. I also agree...

I said quite clearly that “Either all religions are false or one religion is true.” Then I asked why God did not just show up and prove that he exists; I do not demand that one religion cannot be true if God does not do this, rather I was just asking Con if he could answer the question. Furthermore, physicians are not the best people to ask for questions regarding the natural order of the universe. Specifically, the correct group would be physicists and generally the fairest group would be scientists. Although I could not find polls regarding physicists supernatural disbelief I have found that 93% of scientists consider themselves as agnostics or atheists; this is quite a significant statistic ( If your Christian religion is true, then we should immediately pull 93% of scientists out of the workforce. I must note that this is only one of the numerous polls that show scientists are overwhelmingly atheistic or agnostic. These polls show evidence that the most intelligent and trustworthy group of people in our world today (scientists) support the notion that the atheistic worldview is more rational and realistic.

Con: I agree that every person should meet every religion with skepticism. Just because people are born into one religion, it is quite an injustice to assume that they will never become rational people who will look at their own religion with a logical mind. My opponent fails to realize just how many people convert to faiths different from their childhood.

I do not assume that no person will become skeptical of their own religion; I really hope they do so. I do not want to offend you when I say this but I believe you may have a slight bias when it comes down to the evidence because your defense of creationism is reprehensible. And I pity the fact that an intelligent person like you can be drawn into these blatant lies.

Con: Evolution is not a scientific theory...

Evolution is a scientific theory as it passes all of my previously outlined criterion for one. It should be useful to provide an accurate definition of biological evolution as: “Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.” ( - the same online dictionary I used for all previously agreed to definitions) It is common knowledge that the genetic composition of a population does indeed change with each generation for pretty much every species. It is easily testable by comparing DNA sequences of a mother, a father, and their child in each species. All species use the same biological method of processing genetic information known as DNA. Since all living organisms on this planet have some form of DNA it is highly likely that all organisms developed from a common ancestor. Evolution along with natural selection (The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated. - predicts and explains how certain features become prevalent in an organism, and how they developed to be in the context of their environment and function. This can be explained through a completely naturalistic and gradual process. I am well versed on what Creation Science is and offer no bias against it. It has quite a lot of negative hearsay because it has earned that reputation, it is worse than pseudo-science it is a bunch of pretentious bull feces (almost lost that conduct point).

Con: The Holy Scriptures do not attest to an Omnipotent God, so the logical paradox breaks down. The Bible attests to an Almighty God, who is complete in power and in control, but there is no reason to assume that His power must exist as a paradox.

You directly contradict yourself when you say the Bible attests to a God that is “complete in power” yet you deny that he is omnipotent. Omnipotent – “One having unlimited power or authority.” Unlimited – “Without qualification or exception; absolute.” Complete – “Absolute; total.” You can argue for different definitions, but in a colloquial sense the readers can see that your claim is contradictory. I know that you do not want to assume that omnipotence creates a paradox but it does, as I have shown quite plainly. Please answer the question: Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?

Con: My opponent claims that because evil exists...

It is observed that various species commit intentional murder to members of other species all the time. In many cases, this leads to an extinction of a species, an effective genocide. The percentage of species that have ever existed on this planet and are now extinct is 90-99% ( Quite a uselessly eloquent design by God isn’t it? There are many people who call upon God but commit murder instead, what is your point? I am sorry but you cannot simultaneously claim that God is loving and that he created evil. God necessarily created evil when creating man (or creating the universe), as he is omniscient (you agreed to this definition) so he knows exactly each and every evil act a person will choose to commit. Where is your God when an innocent child is being raped? What about the recent case of Ariel Castro ( Where was he when Castro decided to keep three women captive in his basement for 10 years? Imagine how much they must have begged, imagined how much they must have prayed, imagine how much they must have suffered, and imagine for how long. THEY GOT NOTHING FOR 10 YEARS and by the sheerest moment of luck a man finally heard and rescued them. You can claim all you want that your God is loving but please spare me your intellectual honesty on this point and stop it.

Con: My opponent makes the the fallacious claim that evolution is a fact...

The theory of evolution is as close you can get to fact as the theory of gravity. Just the sheer quantity of articles supporting evolutionary theories for one week surpasses all that creationism science has ever published. Again, I am not ignorant of creation science; I know it quite well and I still see that it must be ignored, as it has earned its position in the scientific community as rubbish. Please site your statistical claims with non-creationist based sources.

Con: My opponent asserts that the origin of the universe is unknown...

My arguments is that there are various possible explanations of the origins of a naturalist universe: 1) an eternal one 2) one with a naturalistic cause or 3) one with an uncaused cause. All three are more likely to be the correct than any God explanation due to Occam’s Razor. Occam’s razor simply states that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Since the universe is less complex, the God explanation is not likely. It is irrelevant if the universe itself began as more complex, or less complex, God is always the most complex if he created the universe. You give no reason to believe that your God hypothesis is more likely you simply claim it.

Con: My second proposal applies to the origin of language...

Animals such as chimpanzees, dolphins, and whales also have their own form of language and communication ( Are you going to say that God granted these animals specifically, their own languages? No, we do not know exactly how it started, but if we said "God did it" for every unknown explanation then we would never progress.

I am sorry I could not respond to each one of your arguments as I have reached my character limit. I will respond to the rest of your arguments in the next round. As it stands I believe I have defended each of my arguments quite well, and am therefore justified in stating the resolution stands.


I thank my contender for applying powerful and thoughtful rebuttals to my arguments.

“Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.” -Sir Isaac Newton (Arguably the biggest contributor to science.)

As only 2 percent of the entire world population is atheist, I suggest this is what we should expect should there truly be a God. Now, correlation does not imply causation, so I ask my opponent to counter this and answer why there are so few atheists.

Two Models: Evolutionary Science and Creation Science

(Neither side should dismiss the other as bad science, these are two models with rational arguments that deserve to be examined.)

My opponent argues that since most scientists are evolutionists, creation science is not likely to be true. But correlation does not imply causation. With the separation of church and state, no theological foot is allowed in the door of naturalistic science. These people are already atheist by the time they become scientists.

Now, I want to make a bold point right here. My opponent has called creationism “worse than pseudo-science it is a bunch of pretentious bull feces” and “rubbish.As there exists 43 percent of the American population that adhere to creation science and dismiss the theory of evolution, I defend myself and these people by saying that such rank statements do not deserve to be made, and they imply that almost half of America is irrational when it comes to science.

Also, There are reasons why so many evolutionary scientists will not debate with creation scientists- they generally lose. The evidence usually supports the creationist's favor. As my opponent disagree with creationism, I challenge him to provide evidence of a sufficient amount of formal debates where the evolutionary scientist trumps the creation scientist. I (possibly erroneously) argue that even though my opponent assures me he is familiar with creationism, he has never taken the time to see their side of the argument.

The Christian Religion

The Christian religion is a testable faith. We can look at the historical claims, and through archeology and other historical sources we can discover whether the books of the Bible attest to mythology or actual events. Evidence of such things can be found at creation science websites (listed above)

(I understand my opponent has a distaste for this, but regardless of who is doing the scientific tests, the results will still stand, no matter how much he dislikes those results).

Asking the question “Can God create a rock so big that He can't lift it” does not disprove His completeness in power. A man cannot be a married bachelor. No one, not even a perfect being can create a paradox, and this is honestly an old and tired argument that I argue is a semantics argument that really won't sway any person either way as to whether God exists or not.

My opponent brings in the “there is evil in the world” argument which is also an old and tired argument that is answered by (arguably) the oldest book in the bible- Job. Bad things happen to humanity because humans do terrible things and other times things go wrong. But God is not the cause of evil. The point is for everyone to remain integrity throughout their lifetime. Everyone in this life goes through troubled times, and no one has the claim to say that what they experienced is worse than others. We all suffer, and one reason most people are religious is because people want to have faith that it was not for nothing. Religion is rational because hope for a better future is what helps most people make it through the day.

Arguments for God

I gave a remarkable evidence for God- 3 out of 4 doctors attesting to miracles in the medical field. As I would not ask a chef to fix my car, I would go to a mechanic, so also would I not ask a physicist if he thinks miracles are happening in the medical field, because his/her opinion would be irrelevant. I would ask a person who is actually trained in that field. I just ask that my opponent acknowledges that highly trained and fully intellectual doctors attest to miracles happening today.

My strongest argument that I presented was that we exist at the center of the universe, and that the galaxies' distances away from us are quantized, which strongly implies a significant place in the cosmos for us. I assume my opponent either was waiting for the next round to deal with this topic, or he dismisses it because he seems to reject any research creation scientists have done (which I hope is not the case, because a person's belief does not take away the evidence. It is still there.) Again, this is my strongest case for God, and I am anxious to see how my opponent counters it.

I understand that my argument led to “God did it” and that this is obviously not a favorable solution. I do want to point out that we should not compare how animals interact to how humans do, because our language far surpasses their skills immensely so. All I ask is that my opponent acknowledge that, with our current knowledge, we must admit that if early humans did not originate with a language, they were cognitively impaired and had an increased difficulty to even learn a language, let alone create one from nothing. Obviously the book of Genesis implies Adam was created with a language, and I argue that from what we know now, this is more likely to be true than the first language being man-made.

Origin of the Universe- Complex or simple?

My opponent has made a valid claim- God is always the most complex. I see no other method but to argue that even though Occam's razor states that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, this rule by it's own definition admits that there are cases when a more complex answer is needed. If scientists only used the simplest answer for every scenario, then scientists would be blatantly wrong on many issues. So I turn this argument back on my opponent- why do you insist that the origin of the universe must be simple? Why shouldn't it be complex? The universe is not becoming more complex today, it is deteriorating. So why shouldn't we assume that there was a time when it's complexity was perfect and stable?

I hope I have presented fair and rational arguments for my opponent, and I anticipate his intelligent rebuttals.

Debate Round No. 3


I thank Con for his arguments but he scapegoats many indefensible positions that a theist must account for. His perceptions of creationist science are held in high esteem and I would be glad to show you the many reasons as to why it has not been accepted by the scientific community.

It is statistically proven that the more educated a person becomes, the less religious they are likely to be ( It is also proven that atheists have a higher average IQ than all other denominations including agnostics and theists ( You are right that two percent of the world population is atheist however you refuse to acknowledge and present to the fair-minded reader that most people in the world are not educated, nor are they scientists. I have shown in Round 3 that the most trustworthy and respected group (scientists) are overwhelmingly atheist and agnostic. It must also be noted that atheism is rising while religiosity is in decline ( In most cases it seems, whatever a child is taught in the developmental stages of life, he/she will believe it for the entirety of their lives, as many people do not gain access to a sufficient education.

Why Creation Science is Pitiful

In 1997, a poll by the Gallup organization showed that only 5% of US adults with professional degrees in science took a young Earth creationist view. The problem with it is that it is not a scientific theory at all, which you have already agreed to. It is unfalsifiable by principle as no one has the absolute proof of the origins of the universe nor can it be tested. Young earth creationism is religiously motivated, such that most evidence they refer to are unreliable, biased, and many times contradictory to scientifically established data. This is the main reason why the scientific community discards this theory. All scientific data showing of an earth that is about 4.54 billion years old include:

1. The formation of sandstone.
2. The formation of limestone.
3. The formation of caves in limestone by carbonic solution.
4. The formation of stalactites and stalagmites in caves, by evaporative deposition.
5. The slow erosion of sandstone by stream flooding.
6. Slow erosion by the freeze-thaw cycle.
7. The slow weathering of hard minerals like granite.
8. The mineralization of petrified wood.
9. The sculpting of mountains and valleys by glaciation, missing in the tropics
10. Slow erosion by inflorescence.
11. Sedimentation in layers in which less-dense and more dense materials alternate
12. The formation of ice cores showing several hundred thousand seasonal cycles
13. The building of volcanic islands
14. Continental drift evidenced by matching coasts and mineral characteristics
15. The rise of mountains by continental subduction.
16. The decay of radioactive materials, including, for example, Argon39/Argon40 that does not depend upon knowing the original amount of an isotope. About twenty independent isotopes pairs having different half-lives support a common time line.
17. The rings indicating the seasonal growth of coral
18. The many reversals of the earth's magnetic fields as captured in lava flows
19. The visibility of light from stars that are more than 6,000 light years distant
20. The plastic folding of the earth's crust shown in rock layers

There are many more as well (but I want to have some characters left for debating). It's conceivable that scientists could have made mistakes in believing that one or two pieces of evidence imply an old earth, but the amount of evidence is so substantial that it is not conceivable that mistakes were made in every case. Moreover, one time line is consistent with all the evidence, and they all cross-reference each other to give the same outcome. Now I still grant that it is possible for the earth to be 6,000 years old, it could even have been created last week but all the evidence shows otherwise. You may say that God created a young earth with evidence for an old earth, but it is still just another unfalsifiable assumption. I do not believe, the all-loving and all-powerful God you believe in would trick pretty much every single scientists for some impossible to prove reason. Evolution is the only scientific theory with real and genuine unbiased support from scientists around the world.

Christianity is just as testable as any other religion. If Christians truly did have undeniable irrefutable prove of their impossibly unrealistic mythology then everyone in the world would notice this and quickly become Christians. Obviously, this is not the case. The Christians has just as much of an empty bag as the Muslim and the Jew. All religions are equivalent glimpses of the untrue.

Con: I understand my opponent has a distaste for this, but regardless of who is doing the scientific tests, the results will still stand, no matter how much he dislikes those results…

As I have previously explained, I will not and could not accept any evidence proposed from creationist sources for the reasons previously outlined. But in the spirit of debating I will try to appease your challenge to: “disprove the quantized state of the red shifts, not merely supply a different model where the universe has no center” even though the site you source is creationist-based.

The evidence that all distant galaxies are flying away from each other is evidence of a uniform expansion of the universe, not evidence that we are in the center of it. This shows that even if we were on any other galaxy we would observe the same general motion. Redshifts happen when light or other electromagnetic radiation from an object moving away from the observer is increased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the earth is the only place in the universe that can observe redshifts. No reputable astronomer believes your view either. It is true that we see different redshifts in different locations, but it is simply incorrect to assert that earth is the ONLY place where we can see redshifts. Source for reference:

Con: Asking the question “Can God create a rock so big that He can't lift it” does not disprove His completeness in power. A man cannot be a married bachelor. No one, not even a perfect being can create a paradox, and this is honestly an old and tired argument that I argue is a semantics argument that really won't sway any person either way as to whether God exists or not.

Again, I have to clarify that the actual concept and practice of logical omnipotence is indeed impossible. It is not a semantic argument as we are not arguing over definitions, we already agreed to them. You cannot account for this fact and cannot answer the simple question with a yes/no answer: Can God create a rock he cannot lift? If you cannot account for this concept of omnipotence it is likely that it cannot and does not exist. This supports my thesis that God is not likely to exist.

Con completely ignores my contention that if God is omniscient and God created the world, then God necessarily created evil, and knew each choice that every evil human will make. So Con's free will argument has no actual bearing, as even if I grant that God gave humans free will he would still know each evil action that is going to be committed as God is omniscient. God knew he would create evil, but did it anyway I see no reason why an all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful God couldn’t create a world with no evil.

My opponent admits that God must always be more complex than the universe, and in this sense concedes the point that in this regard God is unlikely to exist due to Occam’s razor. I must clarify however that my opponent purports to misrepresent Occam’s razor by saying that nothing can be adequately explained if they were all simple explanations. Occam’s razor does not say this, it explicitly states that the theory which is the most brief but has equivalent explanatory power should be used, and is most likely to be correct. By correlation, a naturalistic universe is less complex and therefore more likely than one positing a God.

It is important to note that although the atheistic worldview only has a stance on the issue of God, the beliefs of his existence plays an imperative role in many aspects of ones life. The atheistic worldview is more rational because their arguments are more logically sound and coherent in relation to the real world. The atheistic worldview is more realistic because God is not likely to exist according to all the evidence, and all human observations. The atheist is most justified in claiming that so far there has not been any compelling evidence or arguments for a God to be sufficient for belief in that God.

I do not want to burden the audience with any more reading, so I will extend my previous arguments as I believe that they have not been adequately refuted. Some may believe that the atheistic worldview is lacking some spiritual basis. I would like to point out that any non-believer can experience highly spiritual events and marvel at the beautiful consistency of nature. For the harder questions in life I would point to philosophy. Christopher Hitchens once said along similar lines, "Where astrology ends astronomy begins, where alchemy ends chemistry begins, and where religion ends philosophy begins." I want to thank Con for his rationalism, intellectual honesty, and professionalism throughout the debate. The resolution stands: Atheism is the more rational and realistic worldview than theism.



Correlation does not imply causation

My opponent assumes that the more educated a person becomes, the less religious they are, then proceeds to provide links that show that at least 50 percent of people in educated positions believe in God. Also, the poorest countries in the world tend to be more religious. They are uneducated because the countries lack the money to teach the citizens- they don't all have a government like America. I want to stress this point- correlation does not imply causation!

Evolutionary Model and the Creation model:

Evolution is also unfalsifiable. Here are some examples as to why not all scientists believe in the evolutionary model:

There is no observable evidence that a T-Rex evolved into a chicken.

Uranus and Neptune should not exist!

The Sun is almost 5 billion years old. As the sun gets warmer throughout its life, this shows that in the past, life could not have existed on earth millions of years ago.

Petrified trees that go though the earths layers (that should be millions of years apart) are found throughout the world

Helium in crystals suggest a young earth.

We never see stars form.

Short term comets prove a younger universe.

These are just some examples of the many problems with evolution, as can be found here:

Many of the “proofs” my opponent set for evolution can all be dismantled by the website provided above. It doesn't matter how many scientists believe in what, all that matters it the evidence itself.

If the earth does have a history of supernatural intervention, then no naturalistic scientist can accurately explain the past. My opponent presupposes that God does not exist, but instead I suggest that true science is following the evidence to wherever it leads.

Final Rebuttals

God is not a married bachelor. He cannot lie, cannot sin, cannot die. I see no issue with saying He also cannot create a rock bigger than He can lift.

My opponent says that if God was loving, he would prevent the evil in the world. How do parents raise children? Do they prevent every bad thing from ever happening to them, or do they lovingly allow them the ability to make their own mistakes once in a while?

My opponent claims that the origin of the universe was simple and that we should apply Occam's razor. I disagree. However, consciousness causes collapse. This is a phenomena in quantum mechanics, and as far as we know, for a universe to exist, we would have needed an original consciousness to set physics in motion. Whether something came from nothing, or something eternally existed are both intricately complex situations. We should not assume the simplest explanation for the most complex question in the universe.


The resolution stands: Atheism is the more rational and realistic worldview than theism."

My opponent again claims his resolution still stands, yet he has completely disregarded my three arguments for God.

it is simply incorrect to assert that earth is the ONLY place where we can see redshifts

My opponent set up a straw man by inaccurately stating my position. Yes, every place in the universe can observe red shifts. The universe is expanding. The issue is that ONLY from earth can we observe quantized red shifts, a phenomena which is also noticed by secular scientists.

My opponent also disregards the acknowledgment that the professionals in the medical field attest to miraculous phenomena.

My opponent fails to supply a counter towards my argument that man created with language is more likely than man creating a language.

As we exist in the center of the universe, our qualified physicians show us that there are reasons to believe in miracles. As God more than likely endowed mankind with the ability of language and consciousness, we should be able to use rationality to see that with a worldwide population of 7 billion, why should we allow ourselves to believe that only 2 percent of the entire population live in the correct worldview?

(I appreciate the debate with my opponent, I am glad for the challenges he set forth for me, however, I am disappointed of his refusal to acknowledge my strongest arguments.)

Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Orangatang 3 years ago
I would rather not make another debate, as I am having one right now... I would much rather you outline your answer to my question as a comment right here for everyone to see, please make it brief.
Posted by radz 3 years ago
As of now, I deem that it is better to affirm that the Christian deity is not omnipotent PER SE.

The Holy Trinity is Holy, they can't do sin. Although the Trinity is logical and biblically coherent doctrine, the assertions that omnipotence in its strictest value is part of their trait somewhat makes them confine into illogicality.

The truth is, the Christian deity can do anything with the exception of sin because of the aforementioned reason of holiness which is very intrinsic in their one being.

As for your latter question, I could make it as a debate or I will send it you to instead. ( It's kinda long to bring it up here. :)
Posted by Orangatang 3 years ago
@ Radz:
God was defined in round 1 of the debate, and my opponent accepted this definition when he accepted the debate. All-necessary is not an attribute given in the definition for this debate. Perhaps there is no obvious reason for him to create such a rock but I am asking if it is even possible. The whole concept of logical omnipotence breaks under this paradox so it is not an attribute that God can possess. You admit God cannot do it because it is illogical, now I ask can you still assert he is all-powerful? Many theists would not respond how you do, they would make the claim that God "transcends" logic, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I never claimed the Christian God is not just omnipotent, did you even read the debate? I argued against claims of his omnibenevolence as well. Let me please ask you, if God is all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful then why does evil exist?
Posted by radz 3 years ago
I think, before establishing the argument for God's non-existence via he-can't-do stuffs, we should first define who is this God we're referring to.

The Christian deity is not solely omnipotent he is also all-good so that he could do anything except sin.
He is all-necessary that he doesn't need to create a rock that he can't lift. He is all-perfect that there is no reason for him to create such a rock.

God can't do it because it is illogical and nonsensical.

Orangatan wants asserts that God can DO anything, good and bad, life and death etc. his conception of godhood greatly differs from that of the Christian deity.

The Christian deity has multi-attributes/traits. He's not just omnipotent. This is logical per se.
Posted by thegreenslayer 3 years ago
I am a highschool student and I am just kicking awesomeness.did I mention I am theistic?
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
I would love to debate con sometime.
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
This is a hard debate to vote on because I think arguments on both sides could be better. Pro's arguments were from evolution,man made religions, evil, omnipotence paradox and Occam's razor when dealing with the cause of the Universe. Con's arguments were from the red shift quantization, the complexity of the universe, arguments from population, and communication. Con attempted to rebut the evolution argument by attacking evolution. This is a very ineffective way of arguing against it. It would have been much better to show that evolution is compatible with his religion. He ignored omnipotence paradox throughout the debate. Pro could have defended the problem of evil better. Con misunderstood Occam's razor, thinking a simple explanation means the universe started simple. One of the main reasons I'm giving arguments to Pro is because Con's constant bandwagon fallacies. Just because the majority believes something doesn't make it true. Con's red shift argument was straw manned, but I feel the other mistakes made by Con outweigh this. Con's argument from communication was rebutted by Pro, pointing out it was an argument from ignorance and showing other creatures can develop language. Con never responded to the argument from ignorance claim and asserted that humans would have had a hard time developing communication. But Pro gave evidence of primitive languages, proving humans wouldn't have been in the dark about it when they developed. Con could have won this, but I feel is argument from population is why he should lose.
Posted by Orangatang 3 years ago
I would rather live to follow the rigorous truth of reality than try to accommodate and justify comforting ideas. Isn't it rather insulting to believe that us humans cannot figure out the correct moral actions for ourselves, we need a divine authority to give it to us? Morality I believe is best explained through an evolutionary perspective as it is quite easy to see that not killing one another would be beneficial to the species. In any case we are kind to one another because we have an innate sense of morality, and because as we develop we recognize human empathy. We learn right and wrong through positive and negative feedback as we test our actions in the real world. The best moral teaching I've ever seen personally is the Golden Rule: "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself." This generally works for most cases that don't involve psychopaths. Morality does seem to be subjective, but it has not stopped us from determining what is right/wrong or good/bad in our society.
Posted by nonamenoslogan 3 years ago
without religion, my mistake
Posted by nonamenoslogan 3 years ago
If religion produces a more humane and kinder environment, as opposed to a brutal one of culling the weak who cannot contribute to the whole, does it matter if the God the religion espouses is real or not? Personally, I find no way to justify, without some "supernatural code" why we should be kind in many aspects without an idea of right and wrong. And with religion, what is right and wrong outside of strength. The closest I've found is Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate but far to many arguments dropped by both sides, Pro presented a tirade or arguments to begin with and I feel Con adequately gave rebuttals as much as he could, although contesting creation science with evolution as not being a theory, was an audacious move and I feel Pro won this argument, in other aspects I think Con held to the debate better whilst Pro kept laying down more arguments, which gave Con even more to chew.. Over all I think Con won in by arguments, and spelling and grammar but I will refrain from argument points because it's to complex to explain all the arguments. But I award Con spelling and grammar and conduct is for Pro's comments, such as, "And I pity the fact that an intelligent person like you can be drawn into these blatant lies." This is a personal attack... Apart from that Pro has a good case for atheism although he should tackle less subjects at once. And give each topic the depth it deserves. also the NAS stats are misleading.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 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 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: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by ModusTollens 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 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: Con begins his argument with an ad populem fallacy (Pro is wrong to concede that adding the word "likely" sidesteps this). He/she also presents expert opinion incorrectly. Medical experts cannot be said to have expert opinions on the existence of deities. That doctors see no medical reason for what they see is compelling evidence that there is a mystory, not that explanation X or explanation Y is correct.