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

Does God exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/2/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,693 times Debate No: 37269
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)




Hi, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate today. The question of whether or not God exists, is a question that has been asked for a very long time. Tonight, I will be arguing for Christian theism. I would like to defend two major points. First, there is no good reason that atheism is true. Second, there are good reasons that theism is true. Atheists for many years have tried to disprove the existence of God, but no one has come up with a successful argument. So let"s go on to the second point that there are good reasons to think that theism is true. There are five major arguments I will present, that I believe demonstrate the truth of theism.

The Cosmological Argument: The cosmological argument goes as follows: whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore, the universe had a cause, the obvious cause is God. Is the first premise true? Logic tells us that it is impossible for something to come into being uncaused. Have you ever seen a horse come into being uncaused? No. Why? Because things don"t come into being uncaused. Believing something can come into existence uncaused is worse than believing in magic. Thus, the first premise is true. Is the second premise true? Did the universe begin to exist? Atheists have said for a long time that the universe is just eternal, and uncaused. But there are good scientific reasons to think that the universe began to exist. For example, the universe is expanding. This means that something had to start the expansion. The universe must have come into existence from a point. This means that the universe had a beginning. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that the universe is running out of usable energy. If the universe had been here forever, it would have run out of energy by now. This follows that the universe had a cause. Let"s examine what that cause was. Since the universe can"t bring itself into existence, the cause must be outside of time and space. The cause must be: timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and powerful. Something like God.

A fine tuned universe: Scientists have been shocked by the fact that the conditions of the universe have been finely tuned for life to exist. To give an example of this, if the rate of expansion of the big bang was changed by as little as 1 and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 life wouldn"t exist. If the atomic weak force was changed by 2% life wouldn"t exist. This fine tuning can only be due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. Now, it can"t be due to physical necessity, because the physical constants are independent of the laws of nature. Now, could it be due to chance? The problem with this alternative is that the odds of the fine tuning occurring by chance is so incomprehensibly great that they can"t be reasonably faced. It is more likely that the stars will arrange themselves tonight to spell your name, then for the fine tuning to have occurred by chance. Thus, this gives us a designer of the universe.

Biological Complexity: When we look at our biochemistry, our cells, our organs. It is clear it is incredibly complex. While I accept evolution to be the leading explanation for biological diversity, I am quite skeptical about the mechanisms which drive evolution. To say that the diversity of life occurred by natural selection operating on random mutations is what I have a problem with. I believe that the complexity of our systems is more than enough evidence for a creator. There are billions of cells in the human body, which forms tissues, which forms mussels, and they all work together almost perfectly well. I have a hard time to believe that this occurred by selection acting on mutations.

The Moral Argument: If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. If God does exist, then objective moral values do exist. When I say objective moral values, I mean morals that are binding and true whether you believe in them or not. Picture a house burning, and there are two children in that house. What would you do? You would help them. So who instilled that in you. Some atheists have responded to this by saying that objective moral values are just illusions ingrained in us by evolution. The problem with this is that evolution has nothing to do with morals. Evolution is all about survival, and reproduction. So this follows that since objective moral values exist, God must exist.

The resurrection of Jesus: If Jesus really did rise from the dead, we would have a supernatural occurrence, therefore, evidence for the existence of God. Now, you might say that the resurrection is just something you believe in, by faith. But there are some fact which I believe to be best explained by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Fact number one, Jesus" tomb was discovered empty by a group of his women followers. Now, attempts by atheists to explain this fact have included the following: someone stole the body, or they went to the wrong tomb. The Jews and Romans had no motives to steal the body. Jews do not believe in a savior. So why would they steal Jesus" body to prove something they don"t believe in? Most romans were pagans, so they also did not believe in Christian salvation. The group of women who went to the tomb watched Jesus be put into the tomb, so they knew exactly where it was. It seems unlikely that they would forget after just three days. Another fact is that women had no rights back then. If someone wanted to make a story up like this, they would have put it so that a man (such as John, or Paul) found the body. Another fact is that people saw images of Jesus after his crucifixion. Not just Jews and Pagans, but also enemies of Christ. Why would an enemy of Christ tell stories of how they saw images of Jesus if they didn"t believe he was divine? Thus, this follows that Jesus rose from the dead, and Christianity is true.

In conclusion, I have given five good arguments to think that God exists. If my opponent is to say that God doesn"t exist, he will have to tear down all of the arguments that I presented, and then give his own case to say that God doesn"t exist. Unless, and until he does that, Christianity is the much more reasonable worldview.


Hey tala00131, Thanks for the opportunity.

I'd like to start by saying that atheism is defined as the lack of belief in a deity. There is no proof that God does not exist, anymore than there is proof that unicorns do not exist. Just because we can't disprove the idea, that doesn't mean it's true. It's a state of improbability, and atheists, such as myself, argue that God has an equal (if not lower) probability of existing than unicorns. I would say that the burden of proof is on you, and atheism is a position that you have not backed up your claim with proof. On to your 5 arguments :)

Cosmological Argument

Well, the universe will have probably had a cause, I will grant you that. The matter is still of much debate, with M-theory offering powerful new ideas as to what that cause was. Before the universe, time didn't exist, and neither did the laws of physics. We say that things don't just pop into existence (well, actually they do in the quantum world of subatomic particles, and at one point the universe was smaller than an atom), but only because the laws of physics dictate that. Without those laws of physics, there is nothing to stop a universe just popping into existence, because there are no laws. However, with M-theory (etc) that view could be seen as scientifically naive, so let's assume something caused the universe. I would say, there is no need to invoke a god. Gods only make the matter worse, because then we ask ourselves, where did God come from? "He's eternal." Right, but why? Who or what made him eternal? Did he make himself? It's nonsensical to invoke something for which there is no evidence as the first cause. If I said an eternal leprechaun made 5 fairy godmothers who built the universe, you would expect me to provide evidence for them, and I expect the same from you here. I want some proof that your god made our universe.

Teleological Argument

So you say that the universe is so fine tuned. Some scientists actually disagree with that, but let's assume you're right that life couldn't exist if the universe's expansion rate was changed. Why do you put such high importance on life? Life is just a thing that exists. It only seems remarkable to us because we are the life. Actually, we're just vehicles that molecules use to replicate themselves. Life is nothing special at all, and the universe is certainly not fine tuned for life... In fact our universe is a horrendous habitation for life. In fact, if anything is the purpose of the universe, it's black holes. There are more black holes than life-bearing planets (more than any planets), and while life has to have very special conditions to exist within our universe, black holes just happen. They are inevitable. But they aren't the purpose, and neither is life. There is no purpose - the universe just exists. In fact, if the universe was made for life, God could have made the universe geocentric, or made the universe with breathable air, or maybe God could have made the whole universe hospitable to life, not one of eight planets orbiting one star out of 400 billion stars in our galaxy, which itself is one of 100 billion. Why would a designer make us out of atoms and normal matter, which makes up less than 3 percent of the universe, while other types of matter and energy make up the rest. We can't even interact with it. No this doesn't give us a designer, it gives us the idea that the universe can cater for life, but only just. A lot could be improved

Biological Complexity

Well you are wrong. Evolution is a fact, as is natural selection. If you look at the human, it is evidence for why there was not a designer. Yes, everything is complex, but after 4 billion years of evolution, this complexity is what we would expect. In fact, if there was a designer, he's made the human body very, very badly. Our eye is held up to be the symbol of perfectional design, but it's really awful. It's back to front. All the nerves are in front of our photoreceptors. If any logical being were to design an eye, they would put the nerves behind the photoreceptor, so the light could travel more clearly. However, we have evolved by natural selection, so our eye is far from perfect because evolution doesn't make things perfect. Our terrible eyes are better than no eyes at all, and that is all evolution does. A designer would have given us decent eyes, no appendix and it wouldn't have made the human body so easy for pathogens to attack.

The Moral Argument

Actually, evolution caters very well for morals. Morals evolved because it is our genes that 'want' to survive. To do that, they make our bodies eat and rest and then reproduce. That leads many to believe that if we were only acting on genes, we'd be very selfish. Actually, since other humans share almost all of the DNA with us (99% - only 1% difference in all our DNA), the genes instill a sense of empathy, so we can help others who carry the same genes to survive. Also, moral behaviour leads to good social groups, which can then protect you from harm, aiding survival.

The Resurrection of Jesus

Do you have any evidence for any of this? If you do, that's fine, but I can't find any. If you give me some, I'll be happy to respond. Plus, may I point out, other resurrection tales with equal stories of women finding tombs empty, etc, were very, very common in those days. Extremely commonplace.

Well, as I've said, I have no argument that God doesn't exist, like unicorns. Can you disprove unicorns? No, but that doesn't mean that they exist, and you wouldn't be expected to provide arguments against their existence, you would just say that there is no reason to believe in them. I can give it a go. How about the suffering in the world? The millions of innocent children dying of AIDS and other diseases? Why did God wait 200,000 years after humans first appeared until he came to save us from sin with the brutal torture of his son? Why did he appear not in China where they had a sophisticated society where they could have properly documented everything, but in the desert to illiterate men who could barely write?

Your go :)
Debate Round No. 1


The Cosmological Argument: My opponent said that the universe probably did have a cause, but the matter is still up for debate this is false, almost every scientist agrees that the universe had a cause. My opponent mentions that things pop into being from nothing all the time. This is false, subatomic particles pop into existence from quantum fluctuations, not from nothing. My opponent says that the universe was once the size of an atom, this is false. The big bang model says that the universe came into being from a singularity that was smaller than an atom, and nothing existed before this singularity. My opponent says that if God crated the universe, someone must have created God. This is just absurd. You can't have an infinite number of causes, you have to have a cause that was uncased.

A fine tuned universe: My opponent said that some scientists disagree that the universe is finely tuned. This is false, it is a fact that the universe is finely tuned. The fact of this argument is not that life is important but rather it is unlikely that the universe would be fine tuned for life by chance. My opponent says that if God made the universe, we would be able to breath in space. This is laughable. Yes, there are some places in the cosmos which is hostile to life. Who cares? The only place that matters is earth.

Biological Complexity: I already stated I accept evolution. But our biochemical systems are so complex that they could not have evolved without a designer. Where did life come from? Where did DNA come from?

The Moral Argument: Evolution has nothing to do with morality. Evolution is kill or be killed.



It certainly isn't false. A lot of scientists don't think there was one. I did actually say, however, that I thought this was scientifically naive. I agree the universe does have a cause. Yes, they do arise from quantum fluctuations, however those come out of what is essentially nothing. I did say smaller, check back. I thought you said that "Logic tells us that it is impossible for something to come into being uncaused"? Or does that not apply to something infinitely more complex than a universe? Why is it one rule for me and another for you? A supernatural being must have had a cause if "he" had the ability to create a universe. Why can't there be an infinite number of causes? I see no reason why there can't be...


No, it is (again - I sense a pattern of erroneous assumptions here) certainly not false. It is not a fact that it is fine-tuned. I can even name some physicists that disagree if you like? How about Victor Stenger? Or Fred Adams? Both highly regarded physicists, both high critics of the fine-tuned theorem. Actually it is a matter of importance - why is it unlikely for the universe to be fine tuned for life by chance? You say that because you think life is important to the universe - it isn't. Life just happens to be here and it really isn't special, was my point. I said he wouldn't have bothered to make an extremely large universe, all of which was inhospitable apart from just our planet if he made it for us. What's laughable is your god's pointlessness in designing the entire universe just for us.

Biological Complexity

Yes, but as I stated, if there was a designer, he would be an awful, awful designer - which clearly isn't Yahweh. The first self-replicating molecule would have been extremely simple - much simpler than other molecules at the time of abiogenesis. We don't know where life came from first, but that doesn't mean we should invoke a celestial dictator just to make sense of it. We just say, we don't know so we'll do some tests to work it out. Before 1859, people said "We don't know where humans came from... GOD!" but then Darwin proved that wrong. Just because we don't know it yet (like pre-1859 scientists about evolution), does not mean there won't be a natural explanation.

The Moral Argument

I just explained why evolution had a lot to do with morality. Just restating your sentence before I debunked it is not a good argumentative technique.
Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago

For the article you cited:
"The empty tomb may be the strongest proof Jesus Christ rose from the dead." How, again? Seriously, it's evidence that his body was gone from the tomb, not that he rose from the dead. It's more rational to believe that someone moved the body and employed bribery, luck, force, etc... than the laws of nature were halted. Unless you assume that God exists in the first place to halt the laws, but that just begs the question and is a logical fallacy.

Also, logical fallacy is an oxymoron - just thought I'd throw that out there.
Posted by tgregorz 3 years ago
I'm afraid the instigator puts me in the position of having to say he seems like someone who has never read any of the arguments of those opposing his side. I haven't seen most of the arguments he posed since I was studying philosophy and ethics at a secondary school level. Also, there was no body in a tomb so... God, that's logic. A good expression; 'Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.' There are definitely better explanations for a missing body than the 'Magic Sky Bully.' (that's god by the way)
Posted by sam.conran 3 years ago
I'd already guessed at Craig - the arguments reek of his style. Oh well, thanks. I'll watch it after the debate - I'd like to try on my own first :)
Posted by Faust1081 3 years ago
I see Tala00131 has just watched Dr. William Lane Craig's debate with Dr. Lawrence Krauss in Australia (

Pro's arguments are identical to those which Dr. Craig proposes in the link, and Pro gives them in the exact same order, while using much of the same language. Pro's only major departure from plagiarism is his omission of two of Dr. Craig's arguments: the applicability of math and the argument from personal experience.

I (of course) do no not have a problem with people agreeing with, and arguing for, ideas put forth by others, but you should at the very least cite these ideas when you use so much of them.

Con, Dr. Craig makes all five of Pro's arguments in the first 20 minutes of the video. The next 15 minutes is Dr. Krauss arguing against the premise. About an hour of discussion follows. I just thought you should be aware of the source material.

Good luck to each of you.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Leonardo 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con refuted all of pro's arguments.
Vote Placed by rottingroom 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Grammar - pro made minor spelling mistakes. Sources - Hardly any were used but Con did mention some physicists that support his claims. Arguments - Con rightly made it clear that the burden of proof was pro and he did not accept that. Con addressed all of Pro's claims and would often just restate those claims without any rebuttal of his own.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I do believe in Pro... And he gave better than normal answers by the standards of these debates, but Con took the lead. Pro repeated things, and Con kept re-rebutting them. Con seemed to understand the topic well. Neither had issues with Conduct or S&G, and there were no sources.