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

Can a God Possibly Exist 2.0

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/29/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 435 times Debate No: 75931
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




First round: Introduction.
Second round: Argument.
Third round: Conclusion.

I am CristianGeek, good luck.


God: Any being or entity with an absolute control of everything,

Possible: Is it not impossible.

My opponent is to argue that it is impossible for a god to exist. Failure to do this and it is an automatic disqualification.


I graciously accept the challenge. I will, however, begin by outlining that I do accept the definition of god being "Any being or entity with an absolute control of everything", and will argue against this being possible. I also would like to point out that the instigator has made a linguistics error in defining the positions. The position of pro is defined by the instigator as possible meaning "It is not impossible". This is an equivocation fallacy, based on the assumption that not being able to demonstrate something as impossible is the same as stating it as being possible. I will demonstrate this is unfounded. The attempt at defining the position of con as requiring an argument that it is impossible for a god to exist, is therefore, shifting the burden of proof to the negation of the original claim. The instigator's claim is that it IS possible for a god to exist, for which I will argue he cannot sufficiently demonstrate is a reasonable assumption, and therefore has failed to demonstrate his point.
Debate Round No. 1


Stephen Hawking paralell universes.

There could be one with the cristian god exsists, and it could be the one you and i are in.


First, I would like to state that you have failed to demonstrate any possibility here at all. You have not demonstrated that Stephen Hawking's notion of parallel universes even are possible. This statement is hinged solely on it being Stephen Hawking, which is an appeal to authority fallacy.

However, I will accept the possibility of Dr. Hawking's parallel universe model, as he himself does demonstrate great reason to accept it is possible. This still, however, does not demonstrate that god is possible. The statement "there could be" is not substantiated. It could equally be said that there could be not a universe with a Christian god. Thus, we have a logical argument that seems to lead to two conflicting conclusions, making it invalid. The claim that there "could be" a god is an equivocation fallacy, falsely asserting possibility to a position that simply isn't known. This is an argument from ignorance fallacy, as it simply claims that since we cannot know something is impossible, it therefore must be possible. This form of fallacy is also a type of false dichotomy, where it does not accept a third (or more) position, namely that we simply don't know whether it is possible or impossible.

To demonstrate this point, we can use an analogy with dice. Suppose that I have a single, standard, six sided die. Were I to ask you if it would be possible to roll a three, you would be right to say yes. This much, we can know, by both experiment and observation. I can see a side of the die with three on it, and I have rolled a three in the past. By this logic, we can also extend this to say it is possible to roll a four, or a five, or even a six. But what about a seven? Is it possible, even in an infinite number of rolls, to roll a seven with a six sided die? So here we can see that, even in an infinite number of worlds, something that is not possible simply is still not possible. Therefore, we cannot assert that something is possible, just because there could be an infinite number of universes. Something that is impossible is simply impossible, no matter how many times we repeat it.

We can extend this analogy even further. Suppose I take this single die, and I place it in a black bag. In this black bag contains a number of dice ranging from zero to infinity. Since it is possible for this bag to contain any number of dice, is it possible to roll an eighteen with the contents of the bag? On its face, it seems that this is possible, as it is possible that the bag could contain at least three dice, and thus could be possible to roll an eighteen. This assumption, however, would be wrong, for it makes the fallacy of equivocation in terms of possibility. Just because it is possible for the bag to contain the required set number of dice, does not mean that it necessarily does. The possibility of rolling an eighteen necessarily does require this number, so if there are less, then it simply isn't possible. Suppose I dump out the contents of the bag, and there are only two dice in it. It is impossible to roll an eighteen with the contents of this bag, and it isn't a matter of us now knowing. It was never possible to roll an eighteen with the contents of this bag, even though it was possible for there to be the required number of dice in the bag to make it possible. Until we know the contents of the bag, all that can be said is that it is possible that it is possible. The same applies for your argument of god.

It matters not how many universes are possible to exist. It matters only that we know one in which a god is possible, does exist, or all we can conclude is that we don't know if it is possible or impossible. Thus, the intellectually honest position is to state we don't have enough information to know at this time. So, as you have not demonstrated that it is possible for such a god to exist in any given universe, let alone that it is even possible for said universe to be possible, you have failed to demonstrate that god is possible, and thus, the negation of the statement that it IS possible for god to exist, the position of con, is the only logically valid argument.

Your argument is even further problematic in the assumption that the Christian god exists. This is simple to disprove by demonstrating the exact same logic to every other god. By your own logic, it is possible for the Islamic god to exist, and if so, then the concept of god defined by Christianity necessarily cannot exist. Thus, it is possible that no Christian god exists.

I will conclude this round by opening up my argument against the possibility of either definition of god the instigator has presented. In round one, the instigator defined god as "Any being or entity with an absolute control of everything", and in round two, he described the possibility of the "Christian god". For either of these examples, we can demonstrate that the logical argument against the possibility of both is valid. For the existence of a being or entity with an absolute control of everything, defined in round two as the Christian god, is self contradicting. If the Christian god has "absolute control of everything", then he has control of the actions and thoughts that condemn those to hell. Furthermore, it means that he had total control of the Nazi party, and Hitler's Holocaust. It also means that he is responsible for the actions of the devil, as well as all those he sends to him. It also means that he is in control of the actions of lust, an emotion that he punishes people for. I bring this point up with good reason. If this god were in absolute control of everything, then he necessarily puts the feeling of lust into our hearts. If god is omniscient, and omnipotent, as defined in the Christian doctrine, then it means that god necessarily must know what lust feels like, or there is something he doesn't know, and something he cannot do. This is contradicting to itself, for this also means that god is guilty of a feeling that is a sin to feel, and thus he is neither all good, nor perfect, or that he is all good and therefore cannot know what it is like to feel lust. In either event, a god that is neither all good cannot judge the actions of others as good, nor can a god that is good and all loving, judge a person based on something he gave them, but cannot know what it is like to feel. I would gladly elaborate on this in the next round if my opponent feels it needs more discussion.

To summarize the point made here, the possibility of a self-contradicting being is simply unfounded to accept. Furthermore, the argument presented by the instigator that there could be a universe that the Christian god exists in has not been demonstrated as being possible, and it could also be that we are not in such a universe. The logical conclusion that god is possible is simply invalid, for the reasons I have shown.
Debate Round No. 2


My arguement is stating that there is a unbreakeable chance of his existence.
This is without the term paralell universe.

Replacing the terms with the definitions:
Can a being or entity with an absolute control of everything not be possible to exist.

I have demonstrated that there is a chance, and therefore i win with my awnser yes to the statement.


Unfortunately, all ChristianGeek has done is state "there is an unbreakable chance of [god's] existence". A statement he has made without ever having shown a single reason to be true. As such, his attempt to redefine or replace his initial argument with "Can a being or entity with an absolute control of everything not be possible to exist" is a shifting of the burden of proof fallacy. As I demonstrated in my opening argument, one cannot simply claim that something is possible without demonstrating it to be such. In this debate, the very topic is one of the unknown, not of the known. As such, we have no way of knowing if such a god is possible, and ChristianGeek's failure to demonstrate as such means he has not demonstrated his position of the debate "Can a god exist".

Also, I have demonstrated that a being in absolute control of everything is rather contradictory. To be in absolute control of everything would mean that he is in control of all the evil, destruction, and every action that opposes him, and his plan. Such contradictory behaviour demonstrates no reason to assume there is a chance such a being exists, and if there is no reason to assume he could exist, then there is no argument to be made in support of the idea of him being possible.

Thank you very much for taking the time to have read through this debate. I hope that my words have clarified my position well. I look forward to your feedback and votes.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Logic-Bomb 1 year ago
I see this is both of our first debates. A great topic for such a welcome I think. I'm excited to do this. Good luck. :)
Posted by Reeseroni 1 year ago
It has a very broad definition, and can be interpreted in many ways.
Posted by Preston 1 year ago
Someone should accept, argue a shift of BOP is fallicious and since he is aff he must prove god can possibly exist. but ur right reese, possibility is a little abusive.
Posted by Reeseroni 1 year ago
Posted by Reeseroni 1 year ago
Possibly? Of, theres no way to disprove a possibility.
Posted by Preston 1 year ago
haha bop shift, fallacious in nature, *sigh*...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Envisage 1 year ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Con won this with his dice analogy - which outright refuted prima facie plausibility as possibility.