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

Does God Exist?

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 Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/7/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 568 times Debate No: 61374
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




First round is for acceptance.
Second round is for opening statements
Third round for first rebuttals
Fourth round for second rebuttals and concluding remarks

Pro will support the affirmative that God does exist. God will be define as the omnipotent, omnscience, and omnibenevolent creator and sustainer of the Universe as traditionally described by three monotheisms: Christianity, Judism, and Islam.


God's existence - it is reasonable to conclude a supernatural cause of existence

bottom line: if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

if you see a magician who waves his wand and makes cats turn into dogs, you could argue a natural explanation is possible, and perhaps even argue that it is preferable, given most times magic tricks have explanations. but, the most direct observation is that violations of natural laws have occurred, and / or things outside of nature. at what point can we say given there's no explanation that there is magic that occurred, by definition supernatural?

also consider a couple of examples. one is the universe as a balloon, and the other as the earth as the extent of what we know. if there was a balloon of helium, the people inside it might say 'helium and this balloon is all we know, therefore, the balloon created itself'. others would say 'the balloon could have come from a nonhelium and non balloon place. it looks like the balloon was 'blown up' from somewhere else' which, we all know is in fact the truth of the matter. or, what if someone said 'the earth is all we know. everything comes and happens here. to say there is something else a 'universe' of sorts, is by definition illogical.' which of course, we all know is false. so, we can conclude that to argue against me in this matter is what is limited argument, cause it limits the possibilities of where we came from.

as with the magician example, likewise, according to our observation in the early universe, things are not acting according to laws as we know them. more than just that, our observation indicates *violations* of laws as we know them. that is, something from nothing, and the thermodynamics issue.

-the law of thermodynamics.
"Natural systems left to themselves move towards states of lower potential energy."
this says energy is always breaking down from higher states. this theory basically negates the idea that there is something in our physical universe that goes on and on back infinitely. there can be no infinite beginning, because there is no infinite end. we see an end point coming. that means there must be a finite beginning. that means, if you take things back further and further in time, something must have caused the highest energy level of the big bang. we could call that unknown, God. a reason why we might call it that, is because the phenomenon violates natural laws as we know it- a high energy level came from something other than a higher energy level.

-we see a finite beginning with thermodynamics, and the big bang. based on our observation, the universe has a beginning. things are known to have causes. that means the cause must be outside our universe, trancendent. therefore, by definition a supernatural cause exists, given the cause is outside our natural existence. it looks like the universe came from nothing. something coming from something else makes more sense. should this cause be said to be natural or supernatural? it looks like what happened is "beyond nature as far as we know". if it's merely "as far as we know", that would lead some to conclude a natural cause is possible. sure, it's possible, but the indicators are there to conclude it's supernatural. usually, like with a bike rolling down a hill, or in advances of science like what causes tides, we can find indicators to lead us to a scientific explanation. but here, with existence as we know it, it LOOKS like there was the universe, but before the universe was nothing.... so if something caused us, it would have to be outside of natural existence. in fact, the direct observation is more than just not what we know - it's violation of reality, or at least outside of reality, apparently more than is possible.

-////// to put it in terms of traditional philosophy, there then apparently exists an uncaused cause. that is, every effect must have a cause, except apparently the first one. (we could speculate about God and his causes or lack thereof, but for our purposes in this reality, we have to content ourselves with what we see-and the cause of our universe apparently had no other cause before it) one might argue the universe could be its own uncaused cause. but that would assume something from nothing. something from something else makes more sense as mentioned earlier.

-(quantum mechanics shows something from nothing. but that is at the quantum level, where matter already exists to begin with. we have never observed matter to come from quantum happenings, let alone quantum happenings that didnt have matter already there to begin with- if fact, if we did see matter coming from nothing else, we might view that as with the magician, it might be something supernatural)
-even if quantum created matter, it only exists where quanta are to begin with. as far as we know, before the big bang was true nothingness, beyond space time. quanta then don't give a true indication of where existence came from. existence is fundamentally something which nothing can be outside of it, unless it is supernatural itself, that is, beyond existence. given it looks like there was true nothingness and then something, that something must be beyond natural existence, super natural. i reiterate my last posts.
i'm not saying it is a necesssary conclusion, that our cause was supernatural, but it is not illogical, and makes sense, and we have reasons for saying so, "reasonable"

multiverse, something in quantum mechanics, etc. it should be noted too, that there are theories that posit where we came from. those theories are just that, theories. they are not based on empirical evidence. empirical evidence alone, it looks like we came from nothing. and we know that that isn't something we should be working with. why go with supernatural instead of alternative theories? because that's what it looks like.

with the analogy of the magician and with God, this acknowledges that there *could* be other natural explanation possibilities. but nothing has to be definitively proven for it to be a called a proof, or even proven.
theists merely are arguing the most straightforward explanation - the magician apparently caused violations of nature, so we say it apparently is supernatural. it might feel wrong making that conclusion, but if that's what it looks like, that's what it's called.

bottom line: if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.


Atheists often talk about how the spaghetti monster disproves God, cause we could have been formed by it. This is not analogous completely, but it makes an important point. That an intelligence made is is reasonable, that something specific like spaghetti did is random.

what about everyday analogies of causes being natural? Now, It does make sense say something caused us. If you see a bike rolling, that something pushed it makes sense. we'd expect something specific to have a specific cause, but in something that's unique unto itself like existence as we know it, that isn't necessarily expected- we know bikes roling have causes cause we see it all the time it's the only thing to conclude at that level of specificity, and they're (creation v. bike) different things that could reasonably be treated different per anaysis.
Debate Round No. 1


I want to first take a moment and thank my opponent for accepting this debate. Although the first round of debate was intended for acceptance only, I would be willing to continue the debate. However, in the interest of fairness, my opponent should skip her fourth round response, as she would have 4 rounds of debate to my 3. I would like to begin by stating that my case will be twofold. I will argue that we have good reason to think that theism is false, and that the data used to demonstrate this is better explained on the assumption that atheism is true. I will start by presenting 5 arguments against the existence of God.

The Logical Problem of Horrors

This is probably the most ambitious claim that an atheist can make, so it seems like a great place to start. This argument, if sound, would demonstrate that a belief in God is positively irrational much like believing in a square circle. The argument goes as follows:

1) If God exists, then horrendous sufferings do not exist.
2) Horrendous sufferings do exist. (logical contradiction)
C) Therefore God does not exist.

I need to define the term "horrendous sufferings." The term is derived from Marilyn McCord Adams[1] and meant to describe a specific type of suffering in which no greater good is achieved but rather a subset of sufferings of the worst type. It"s a type of suffering that when a person experiences, they lose themselves entirely and believe that their lives are not worth living. Some examples would include a child who is raped for the majority of their childhood, events like the Holocaust, and people who battle severe depression and ultimately take their life to end the suffering. These sufferings would be logically incompatible with a God that is perfectly loving as previously defined. This point can be further developed by assuming that a perfectly loving God would be unsurpassable in his empathy. If God truly understood what it was like to suffer in such a way, then God would not allow these kinds of suffering to occur.

The Evidential Problem of Suffering

This argument originates with William Rowe[2] and seeks to leave the realm of pure armchair logic and look at facts about the world to develop a probabilistic argument that God does not exist.

1) If God exists, then gratuitous suffering does not exist.
2) Gratuitous suffering probably exists
C) Therefore, God probably doesn"t exist

Gratuitous sufferings are those that seem to serve no greater purpose and would be trivially easy for an omnipotent being to either eliminate, or never permit to occur in the first place. Examples would be child suffering such as from diseases and starvation, sufferings due to natural disasters, and animal sufferings such as billions of years of biological evolution and mass extinctions. All 3 of these examples give us a powerful inductive case that gratuitous sufferings do exist, do so independent of human free will, and therefore it follows logically that God probably doesn"t exist. [2]

Divine Hiddenness [3]

This argument was first formulated by J.L. Schellenberg[4] and starts from the premise that God is perfectly loving:

1) If a perfectly loving God exists, he would ensure that all capable creatures whom he loved would always be in a position to enter into a meaningful, conscious relationship with him so long as they are not resistant. (There would be no non-resistant unbelievers)
2) Some non-resistant unbelievers exist.
C) There is no perfectly loving God

Examples of non-resistant unbelievers would be people who have never had a concept of God such as people in tribes of South America or Africa. It also includes people of differing faith who (by no error on their part) happened to be born in the wrong geographic region and given the wrong theology. In order to have a loving relationship with someone, you are presupposing that you think they exist. Therefore a perfectly loving God would always ensure that there was a connection between Him and his creatures so long as they weren"t resisting him.

The Argument from Physical Minds

Michael Tooley and Paul Draper first formulated this argument after several advances in the field of neuroscience. [5] The argument goes as follows:

1) Since all known mental activity has a physical basis, there are probably no disembodied minds.
2) God is conceived as a disembodied mind
C) Therefore, there is probably no God

We know from findings in neuroscience that all known mental states have a physical basis. If I were to stimulate a certain region of your brain, then you would have a corresponding experience. [5] If I were to damage part of your brain, then certain mental states would be impossible for you to have. [5] Just these 2 lines of evidence alone demonstrate that all our understandings of minds lead us to the conclusion that minds require a physical basis. But God is said to be a mind that transcends the physical world i.e. a mind that doesn"t have a physical basis. But how could we arrive at such a conclusion? Everything we know about minds suggests that minds need physical bodies.

The Null Hypothesis

My last argument seeks to draw together what the previous 4 arguments establish and give atheism a cumulative case. The Null Hypothesis states that unless given sufficient evidence between two measured phenomena, that the default position is one that there is no relationship between the two measured phenomena. [6] For example; if I wanted to know whether a new vaccine worked or not, I would test the vaccine. The two measured phenomena would be the vaccine and the disease it claimed to prevent. If people were to contract the disease after being vaccinated, then it would be reasonable to conclude that the vaccine did not work. The same principle is being applied to God. If we cannot discern a relationship between God and the natural world, and even have contrary evidence like what I"ve presented, then we have good reason to believe that no relationship exists between the natural world and God because God does not exist. With this hypothesis, questions concerning the nature of God disappear. Questions like:

1) If God exists, then why does so much suffering exist?
2) If God can miraculously cure diseases, then why doesn"t God heal amputees?
3) If God exists, then why did he choose the long process of evolution for creation?
4) If God exists, then why does prayer seem not to work?
5) If God exists, then why are there so many competing and mutually exclusive religions?

But this argument could easily be overturned given positive measurements of God. If a certain group of people"s prayers showed a positive correlation between their God and the natural world, then the Null Hypothesis would not hold. However, the studies that have been performed of this nature have failed. [7]

In conclusion, our first argument gives us a reason to believe that God not only doesn"t exist, but belief in God is positively irrational. The next 3 arguments gives us good reason to believe based on facts in the world that God probably doesn"t exist. And our last argument gives us a cumulative case against theism and for atheism. This allows us to safely conclude that God does not exist and belief in God is wishful thinking at best. That God has no discernable basis in reality, but rather is a fabrication of the human imagination used for inspiration, consolation, and (bad) explanation. It turns out that we probably weren"t made in God"s image, but rather God was made in ours.



to the problem of suffering, i present the following argued by me before

to the 'non existence of a trace of God' point, i present 'things that look supernatural' aside from existence itself

i would also add to the idea of no trace of God and the 'GOd is hidden point', just look at the level of complexity that has occurred, human eyesight, animals advanced etc. this isn't to say i've proven God via complexity, i'll be the first to admit "if God can just be, complexity can just be". which is similar to the argument "if God can just be, the universe can just be". what i'm saying is to take existence, and the level to which is has developed, and sense God. as some of intuitively argued, how can you look at a field of flowers on a summer day and not see God?

to the ideas of lack of trace of God, and God is hidden points. particulaly the 'why are there unbelivers" point. faith establishses a truly free free will. you enter into being a cocreator when you freely enter being existant, and following as an added layer of 'faith' "God's plan of love". if God made us into automatic believers it wouldnt be the fullest expression of free will.
that there are so many religions like native tribes, i would argue give indications of GOd, cause it shows something innate in human nature, a will to believe. believe what? faith leads the way, but we can see that faith has always been a part of humanity.

to the idea of physical minds, and God must not exist cause he is a nonphysical mind which we have never seen exist. we don't haveto say God is mind though, or has a mind. that implies too much. all we have to say is that God is the something other than nothing that created us. and, besides,. we see lots of 'intelligence' to the world. that gives indications of something inteligent, if it was created by something else. it wouldn't have to be 'intelligent' per se though, to be our cause. all we can and have to establish is that God is the 'uncaused cause' and that he is the something other than nothing that caused us, and broke the violations of thermodynamics and such that i argued earlier.

the arguments i gave about 'miracles' 'existence' and complexity' partillarly give something to go beyond hte null hypothesis. and the arguments i gave for faith show why we approach it from a matter of faith where reason gives a firm foundation, but leaves off.

finally, now that i have addressed all of con's concerns, i would ask him to respond to the 'pure logic' approach in establishing God, that I gave.
Debate Round No. 2


I want to thank my opponent for her arguments. I had a difficult time with the flow of the arguments, so I will attempt to construct them in the most generous manner I can. I want to start by saying that I am a part time magician. I tell this to people a lot, and I"m often asked; "what type of magic do you do?" When I explain that I"m a close up magician who performs card tricks. I"m sometimes met with the curious response; "so you don"t do REAL magic?" And I have to explain that magic tricks are what they think are REAL magic. When someone thinks about REAL magic, they are referring to a kind of magic that isn"t actually possible. What actually are possible are magic tricks. This should give us pause when attributing super natural explanations to our observations, because magic tricks demonstrate that our senses can be fooled. As a magician, I exploit a person"s ignorance of an event that I have a great deal of control over. Because I am tricking someone"s senses and rational, I am causing them to come to an irrational conclusion and them not knowing how I got them there. I think this is a serious flaw of my opponent"s bottom line:

"[I]f it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck."

That"s not always the case, as magicians know when they"re misdirecting you. A baby goose can look like a duck, quack like a duck, but it isn"t a duck. This type of thinking is what is known as an argument from ignorance. [1] Just because you fail to see any alternative other than a duck when seeing something that looks and quacks like a duck, does not mean other explanations do not exist e.g. a baby goose. To not take seriously other possible explanations for a set of given facts is known as confirmation bias. [2] Take, for instance, this quote from my opponent:

"[T]he most direct observation is that violations of natural laws have occurred, and / or things outside of nature. at what point can we say given there's no explanation that there is magic that occurred, by definition supernatural?"

I think this is a perfect example of an argument from ignorance and the result of confirmation bias. It"s an argument from ignorance because it doesn"t establish why we should accept the supernatural explanation and confirmation bias because it never takes alternative natural explanations into consideration. This answer to my opponent's question comes from David Hume"s An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding [3]. Hume asks:

If you were to witness an apparent violation of the laws of nature, which do we think is more probable? That the laws of nature have been violated in our favor, or that you are under a misunderstanding? [3]

The answer should surely be that we are under a misunderstanding. So to answer my opponents question; it is appropriate to believe that a supernatural explanation is preferable, when the explanation that the supernatural explanation did not occur would be more improbable than the supernatural explanation. This brings me to my opponents cosmological argument, because I do not think the supernatural explanation that he has presented is preferable to natural explanations concerning the origins of the universe.

I want to clear up some misunderstandings my opponent seems to have regarding physics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not in any way an obstacle for naturalistic cosmological models. As we travel back in time, we see entropy decrease. That means at the moment of the big bang, the entropy of the universe was zero or at least very nearly close to zero. From that moment entropy has been increasing ever sense. We have models that describe the Universe as eternal and they don"t refer to an uncaused first cause. These models are really complicated and go far beyond any expertise that I would be capable of articulating in a debate, but this video does a wonderful job of explaining the physics and why the approach my opponent has chosen isn"t a sound one:

Next I want to understand what my opponent means by "nothing." He stated: "something coming from nothing" but I"m not sure how he"s modeling this state of "nothingness." He states in his first rebuttals; "God is the something other than nothing that created us." This just seems to beg the question. If you eliminate everything except God, then it is trivial to say that God then created everything. You"ve functionally explained an unknown by assuming the existence of another unknown. This is an argument from ignorance. [1] Modern cosmology models "nothing" as the "quantum vacuum" because that is the simplest model we can create before our ability to even model reality breaks down. Many Cosmological models today demonstrate how our universe could evolve from this quantum vacuum. [4]

My last point can be summed up in one very obvious question: Who created God? It"s arbitrary to define God as the uncaused first caused, because we"ve not been given any reason to think that God doesn"t have a cause. We don"t have any reason to think this first cause IS God. My opponent"s cosmological argument mentions nothing of this beings power, his knowledge, or his moral character. How has he arrived at the conclusion that this first cause is the uncaused, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being of classical theism? Appeals to contingency and complexity fall very short of the task of demonstrating that God exists. I was also troubled by my opponent"s statement:

"[T]here are theories that posit where we came from. those theories are just that, theories. they are not based on empirical evidence."

This statement demonstrates that my opponent does not understand the proper context to which science uses the term theory. [5] If an explanation is a scientific theory, then by definition is based on empirical evidence.
So to wrap up my opponent"s position, I don"t think we"ve seen any sound reasons to think that an uncaused, omnipotent, omniscience, and omnibenevolent being described by classical theism (God) exists. The majority of my opponent"s points were either arguments from ignorance, or a failure to demonstrate that naturalistic explanations are not sufficient in describing the origin of the universe. I think it"s therefore necessary for my opponent to either clarify his position, or demonstrate how naturalistic models of the universe cannot be sufficient in explaining its origins. I also want to remind my opponent to include her closing remarks in her next post as she will be skipping the fourth round. That way we will both have 3 debate rounds.



i am not committing logical fallacies, necessarily. i am merely stating arguments that may or may not be true. if anyone is committing a logical fallacy, then, it would be con, because he is disregarding possibilities, such as magic, or the supernatural.

i see where con is coming from overall, so we may just be at a stalemate, but i invite con to respond to my other two anaolgies, as at this point it may be all we can do, talk in metaphor and analogy.

also consider a couple of examples. one is the universe as a balloon, and the other as the earth as the extent of what we know. if there was a balloon of helium, the people inside it might say 'helium and this balloon is all we know, therefore, the balloon created itself'. others would say 'the balloon could have come from a nonhelium and non balloon place. it looks like the balloon was 'blown up' from somewhere else' which, we all know is in fact the truth of the matter. or, what if someone said 'the earth is all we know. everything comes and happens here. to say there is something else a 'universe' of sorts, is by definition illogical.' which of course, we all know is false. so, we can conclude that to argue against me in this matter is what is limited argument, cause it limits the possibilities of where we came from.

i also invite con to respond to my responses to his opening statement.
Debate Round No. 3


I want to thank my opponent for a great debate. I"ve thoroughly enjoyed engaging her points, and I hope it has been a similarly enjoyable experience for her. I want to start my last post by addressing the responses Pro made to my arguments.

The Problems of Suffering

Unfortunately my opponent only linked to previous debates for my Logical and Evidential Problems of suffering without actually engaging in the arguments I presented. So I have no idea which premises that my opponent intends to argue are false since neither of my arguments are effected by appeals of free will. Within the debate she posted, I came across a very interesting statement:

"[I] concede my biggest weakness is that God even allows any of this [suffering] to begin with. which is why i still struggle with the point. but, God can only allow for what coincides with our inherent nature and free will decisions."

I think this is all the concession I need to reasonably demonstrate that my opponent falls under the weight of my arguments. It"s because we would expect an all loving God to not allow horrific and gratuitous sufferings that gives us good reasons to think that he does not exist. Without directly challenging the premises of my argument, I think it"s reasonable to accept their conclusions.

Divine Hiddenness

My opponent also linked to a debate for this argument while also adding some addition points. Unfortunately, I think my opponent has missed the point of my argument. The point is not that God would make everyone believe in him by force, but that an all loving God would ensure that every person who wasn"t trying to resist him would be in a position to engage in a meaningful relationship. There are places in the world where theism hasn"t even reached, which gives a good reason to conclude that an all loving God does not exist. My opponent went on to say:

"[J]ust look at the level of complexity that has occurred, human eyesight, animals advanced etc."

She then goes on to say:

"[H]ow can you look at a field of flowers on a summer day and not see God?"

This is a textbook example of an Argument from Ignorance, [1] and does nothing to undermine the soundness of the arguments I've presented.

The Argument from Physical Minds

My opponent chose an unusual route in challenging this argument by saying:

"[W]e don't have to say God is mind though."

But that approach doesn"t actually solve the problem because we are attributing properties to God that we have only experienced from minds. The ability to speak, to love, to desire, etc are all actions that require a mind. To say that God isn"t a mind is not only incoherent, but the argument can be reformulated:

1) Since all known thinking ability requires a mind, there is probably no thinking without a mind.
2) God is conceived as able to think without a mind
C) Therefore, there is probably no God

So denying that God is a mind doesn"t have the effect that I think my opponent would like for it to have. So I think we have good reason to accept the conclusions of this argument as well. I think it is also worth pointing out the error in logic that my opponent seems to be making:

"God is the something other than nothing that created us."

This is known as begging the question. [2] Pro is assuming what needs to be proven. What reason do I have that something must exist outside of nothing? How does that even make sense? My opponent would need to clearly define what he means by "nothing" and then establish how he knows of something existed separate from this state of nothingness. I mention this because my opponent claimed he wasn"t necessarily committing fallacies and even said:

"[I]f anyone is committing a logical fallacy, then, it would be con, because he is disregarding possibilities, such as magic, or the supernatural."

Even this statement is a fallacy known as Tu Quoque. [3] By trying to turn the tables on me, my opponent is not addressing the issues I"ve brought up. I think it"s also worth mentioning that I"ve not committed any fallacies by denying magic and supernatural explanations. That is my burden of proof- the whole reason I'm in this debate. My job here is to argue that the naturalistic explanations are more plausible than the supernatural explanations. It"s not that I don"t take magic and supernatural explanations seriously, but I think that the natural explanations are better.

My opponent wanted me to address his balloon analogy, so I"ll give a quick reason why I don"t think it"s a good analogy. He"s first off begging the question again by using an example of balloon that we know is created. The Universe may or may not have been created- that"s what we"re setting out to discover. It"s also not clear how people inside a balloon function, much less the nature of their science, metaphysics, epistemology etc. I know of no reason why the people in this thought experiment can"t make scientific models that sought to discover the origin of their universe. Maybe they could arrive at the appropriate answer, but not enough information has been given.

I want to close by bringing together the conclusions of my arguments. I think the first 4 of my argument"s conclusion hold as I have good reason to accept the premises. I applaud my opponent's attempt at a Cosmological argument; however these types of arguments have been around for centuries and aren"t very influential as natural cosmological models are much more well defined and have greater explanatory power. So with my 4 arguments plus the Null Hypothesis; I think we have good reason to conclude that God does not exist. Since my opponent used Round 1 this should be the final post, so my opponent and I will each have 3 rounds. I would ask that my opponent forfeit the final round in the interest of fairness.





i'm forfetitng this round as requested by my opponent
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Dookieman 2 years ago
I'm sorry if the way I worded my vote makes me look like a mean person. It wasn't my intention to come across that way. I just get really mad when theist use and abuse cosmology to try and argue for God's existence. Because most of the time they completely misunderstand the science behind it. And that really grinds my gears.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
by "pure logic" in my second post, i was referring to hoping con can now address the concerns raised by me in the first post.
Posted by LogicalLunatic 2 years ago
I for one am shocked that dairygirl4u2c can debate like this.
Posted by grotto77 2 years ago
No, but it's a daring question. Those who believe will say "yes" and those who don't say "no". And that is perfectly ok as far as we can make some ground agreements. It's always been sensitive, but it would be great if we could agree on "we can't be sure". Based on that statement, we should subsequently agree that church/faith must be separated from earthly matters, that we all live in now. That's why the state, laws and public education should be religion-free, while every individual must have freedom of religion in privacy, which is, believe in any one, or other God's, or not to have faith at all. Important: freedom of religion must not be abused to apply the religious doctrines (or absence thereof) onto another person unsolicitedly.

But if the question is if there's God, my answer is simple: I don't think so.
Posted by Seeksecularism 2 years ago
The first round was for acceptance only. You were supposed to present your argument in Round 2. Would you like to cancel this debate and start another one?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Dookieman 2 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's first cause argument was really bad. She really needs to understand the science of cosmology before she goes out and makes such absurd claims concerning the origins of the universe. Con's arguments for atheism were solid and Pro failed to refute them. My vote goes to Con.