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

Does God Exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 9/5/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 730 times Debate No: 25464
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




1. This is not a debate over which god.
2. No semantics
3. First round is acceptance to the debate and rules only.


Since Con has made it a point that we not argue over which specific God does or does not exist, I recommend defining it specifically as a being which is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, eternal, and omnipresent. Whether this be the Christian God or the God of any other organized religion will not be the subject of debate.
Debate Round No. 1


I agree with the definition of god you have recommended.

I assume you're an atheist so I would like to ask you a question

What reasons do you have for holding the position of atheism? Your reasons are based upon logic and/or evidence or lack of it. So, is there any reason/evidence for you holding your position that you defend?

First argument

• Something exists. (the universe)
• You do not get something from nothing. (1rst law of thermodynamics/law of conservation of mass)
• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
a.It could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present. But, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time (otherwise it wouldn't be infinite).
b.The universe cannot be infinitely old or all usable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.
• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

We can we infer things about Him from what He created
• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (He would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it)
• He must be eternal (self-existent).
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.

Second Argument

How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God? The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute, they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how do you account for them?

Examples of logical absolutes are: something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time (Law of non-contradiction). A thing is what it is (Law of identity). A statement is either true or false (Law of excluded middle). These are simple, absolute logical absolutes.

The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and are always true all the time everywhere. They are not physical properties. How do atheists account for them from an atheist perspective?

Thoughts reflect the mind
  1. A person's thoughts are the product of that person's mind.
  2. A mind that is irrational, will produce irrational thoughts.
  3. A mind that is rational, will produce rational thoughts.
  4. It seems fair to say that an absolutely perfect mind would produce perfect thoughts.
  5. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then it seems proper to say that they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.
  6. We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God since a physical brain is not transcendent by nature because it is limited to physical space, and God is, by definition, transcendent in nature.



socialpinko forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Con forfeited round. That's OK I've done it to when I get too busy.


socialpinko forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Con forfeited round again.


socialpinko forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


socialpinko didn't even try

Vote Pro


socialpinko forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
It's so overplaaaaaaaayed.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Come on, Spinko. For the love of God!
Posted by muzebreak 4 years ago
As far as I can tell Billdekel's argument might as well have said nothing more then the words TAG and Kalam. It would have been just as sound (that being not sound at all), why is it that people use refuted arguments over and over in some vain hope they wont be this time?
Posted by alex1094 4 years ago
Would love to have this debate with you Billdekel... Message me if you're interested...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF