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

Dose 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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/8/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,426 times Debate No: 31101
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




I would like to thank whoever has accepted my debat challenge. I will begin by giving my opening statment.

Dose the God of the bible exist? This is a very interesting question that has been asked of many years. I have broken down my argument into three major arguments Number One Lack of Evidence and Improbability Number Two The Problem of Evil and Number Three Stupid Design. So let me start off with Number One Lack of Evidence and Improbability, There no evidence that a God exist and what is belief without evidence?
People say well its faith but this is not a point in there favor. Someone born in Afghanistan would say that they had faith in Ala. Not only is there no evidence for God it is highly improbable and unlikely that such a being exist. If you think about it a being so complex that he can create the universe and he can read all of our thoughts and hear all of our prayers at once has to be much more complex than us therefor making his existence very improbable. Complex beings only come from evolution, complex things do not simply always exist. A being so complex as a God is extreamly improbable. Now I will move on to my second argument the problem of
evil. 21,000 children around the world die each day this is equivalent to 1 child dying every four seconds. 7.6 million children world wide die before there fifth birthday.500 000 women die each year because of child birth. These are only a few of the examples of all the evil and suffering that is going around the world. If you believe in God then you have to believe that this is the will of your "loving" God. Now I will move on to my third Argument Stupid design. Most spots in the universe would kill life instantly, most planet orbits are unstable, there are millions of failed galaxy's, all of the other planets in our solar system are dead, the star formation is inefficient, This is only the universe now let my move on to earth. Earth Quakes kill 25 000 people each year, Tornados and tusnamis and volcanos kill 3.5 million people each year. I am sorry for not making this argument very long but I want to save some of my arguments for later rounds


Typically the first round of a debate is only for acceptance and the laying down of rules, but since my opponent has neglected to lay down any rules and has instead jumped into arguing, I will begin arguing too. I have rephrased his three arguments and explained why they fail to support his conclusion.

1- no evidence for God: There is no evidence for God. Complex beings do not simply always exist. They are always the process of evolution. Because God is a complex being, he is extremely improbable.

(a) My opponent says, without argument, that there is no evidence for God’s existence. Rather than examining the arguments that have been put forth for God’s existence, my opponent ignores them.

Let me briefly offer three of the arguments:

[a1] The modal cosmological argument (the argument from contingency)
The existence of the universe is not logically necessary, therefore it could have been different or it could have not existed at all. In order for the universe to exist, something must cause its existence. The universe cannot cause its own existence because existence is not contained in the essence of the universe, just as existence is not contained in the essence of a dog. God is the best explanation for the cause of the universe since he is so radically different from everything else in it. To simply posit another natural thing to explain the universe brings up the same problem as before, but positing God, while it is does not give us an ultimate answer (nothing does), the God hypothesis at least goes with the territory more.

[a2] Humans have the ability to see and appreciate beauty in all areas of life. This ability does not have its roots in evolution, for evolution is driven by survival, and the ability to see and appreciate beauty is not necessary for survival. Since the origins of beauty are not to be found in nature, we must look above and beyond nature (to the divine) to explain it.

[a3] Humans have the ability to behave morally. Scientists have put this down to our genes behaving selfishly, doing things because of such tactics as the belief in reciprocal benefits the subject and the object helped by the subject, good behavior towards one’s family to ensure the survival of one’s genes. These theories fly in the face of evidence that this is not what encourages most decent people to behave morally. Moral behavior of humans cannot be explained in evolutionary terms, so we must again look beyond the natural world to find our answer for it. Also, moral behavior is exactly what we would expect if God existed.

(b) We do not know that complex beings do not simply exist. That conclusion goes beyond the evidence. We would expect this to be true of any ordinary thing that we find on earth, but to say that it is universally true goes further than the evidence will allow. To think that because a complex thing like an eyeball, which is an ordinary thing among many others, must be the result of a long process of evolution, then a complex thing like God, something in a different category altogether from the eyeball, must also be the result of a long process of evolution is extremely irrational. The rules of one category do not necessarily apply to another category as well. Hence, God’s complexity makes him neither probable nor improbable.

2- the problem of evil: There is so much evil in the world. If you believe in God then you have to believe that this is will of your “loving” God.

This is a non-sequiter. The fact that there is evil in the world does not entail that it the result of God’s will. The evil may be here despite God’s will. All of our experience tells us that the evil in the world comes from two sources: people and nature, not God.

So if evil is not the result of God’s will, then why does not God prevent it? Because if all evil will be eliminated anyway in death, then intervening to prevent or eliminate it now would be redundant. Since redundancy is irrational and unnecessary, it would be irrational and unnecessary for God to eliminate evil. Hence, the problem of evil is no problem for God at all.

3- stupid design: Earthquakes kill 25,000 people each year.

I’ve heard the “stupid design” argument before, and my opponent did not even frame it right. He just rehashed the problem of evil, so his third “argument” suffers from the same problem as the previous one. Read above. Hence, this false third point also fails to disprove God.

The puzzling video that my opponent posted features a buffoon defending this last point. No context is provided for the video. Who is the man on the video? Is he an atheist? Was he giving an lecture? Was he debating someone? Who? Anyway, the topic of the debate was “Does God exist?”, not “Is intelligent design stupid?” So this off-topic video does not support my opponent’s resolution.


My opponent has presented three “arguments” for his conclusion that God does not exist. His first does not address all the arguments that have been offered for God’s existence, and so is useless. His second requires that God behave in an irrational manner, and his third, with the misleading title, is simply a restatement of the second.

Oddly, my opponent said that he is sorry for not making his last argument very long but he wants to save some of his arguments for later rounds. Does he not realize that he only made this debate two rounds long, and already used one of the rounds, leaving him with only one round (singular) left to defend himself? Why he made this debate so short is a mystery, but that is his right.

Traditionally, debaters are not allowed to bring up new arguments in the last round, and since my opponent made the debate only two rounds, all he has left now is his final round. I hope he does not bring up different arguments, but even if he does, I will simply address them in my final round.

With that, I hand it over to my esteemed opponent. Let’s hope he doesn’t fold on this debate too.
Debate Round No. 1


I have heard the arguments that my opponet has presented to me before. I said there is no evidence that God exists I did not say that there were not arguments for his existence. The cosmomogical argument is a weak argument. It relys on the idea that we do not yet understand how the univerese came into existence therefor it must be God. To say that I don't understand it therefor magic did it is a very unscientific way of trieing to explain things. Science is always coming up with new theorys and testing those theorys and finding evidence for those theorys but the Christan religion relys on a 3000 year old book that never changes. Creationists rely on the same arguments over and over agian. First of all when it comes to something coming from nothing, the creationists are not correnct when they say that the big bang theory is saying that the universe created it self. The nothing that physists are refuring to is just empty space. According to Lawrence Krauss if you take everything out of space all the particals and radiation and planets and stars ect, that space ways something. Empty space ways something. Krauss also stated that when you have matter and anti matter and you put them together the cancel each other out and give rise to nothing, so if you have empty space the proccess can go into reverse and give rise to matter and anti matter. Now moving on to your second argument. Dose a garden become any less wonderful when you don't think that faries are at the bottom? why dose a rain bow have to be any less wonderful when you understand how it works. Yes humans can apriciate buttey in the world. Evolution is not about survival of the fettist evolution is dricen by genetic variation and random mutation and natural selection. And Natuaral Selection is driven by Reproductive Success, and variation, and variaiton in the trait, and corrolation. Evolution is any change in the herritable traits withing a population accross generations. Now moving on to the moral argument we do not need religion to be good. Right and wrong do not exist, morality is something that changes over time. Even in your bible it says that slavery is ok and misbahaved children should be stoned to death and womeon should have no rights. All these things just seem barbaric in our sociotey this just shows you how right and wrong changes over time.


I am honestly surprised that my opponent did not forfeit this debate, like he’s been doing so far. Good for him.

In my final round I will eradicate his post for round two, and hence refute the conclusion.
My opponent did not address my criticism of the problem of evil/stupid design argument. This counts as two concessions. Now all he has left to rely on is his claim that there is no evidence for God’s existence. I have rephrased his arguments in bold (taking out the incoherence and grammatical issues) and have placed my refutations beneath them. The underlined text denotes the fallacy that my opponent has committed in his post.


The cosmological argument relies on the idea that we do not yet understand how the universe came to be, therefore it must be God.

unsupported assertion: No, it doesn’t. It relies on pure logic. Logic tells us that things like the universe, because existence does not flow from their definitions, require something outside of themselves to explain their existence. Refer to my argument earlier. I won’t repeat myself. But the point here is that logical principles like the one I relied on for the modal cosmological argument are not the result of our ignorance; they are the result of our knowledge. If my opponent thinks that the principle I put forth is mistaken, he should have said why.

When you have empty space, it can give rise to matter and anti-matter.

blinding with science: My opponent did not explain the incoherent statements he made about physics. He seems to think that throwing out fancy words that a physicist said constitutes an argument. It does not.

irrelevance: Even if all the science my opponent threw at me were correct, it does not address my argument. I did not argue that God is needed to explain the coming into existence of the universe (which is what the science addresses). My point was about the bare existence. I was relying on modal logic to make my point. My opponent did not address this. Science cannot operate outside the boundaries of logic. Sorry.

Christians rely on a 3000 year old book that never changes. Creationists rely on the same arguments over and over again.

irrelevance: The bible is not 3000 years old (obviously accuracy is not a strong point of my opponent) and anyway, I did not make any references to biblical or creationist arguments. My opponent is trying to distract from his awful arguments by bringing up things I never said.

Does a rainbow have to be any less wonderful once you know how it works?

straw man: I did not argue that things become less wonderful when you know how they work. I argued that humanity’s ability to perceive beauty is indicative of the existence of the divine. My opponent did not address this. My argument still stands.

Evolution is not about survival of the fittest.

irrelevance/blinding with science: How does this mean that God does not exist? My opponent’s words are so obscure here that it is hard to see what he means, but he seems to be saying that survival is not what drives evolution, random variation is. He is confused. They are both involved in evolution, though survival (of the fittest) is the driving force behind the continuation of evolution. And anyway, even if
random variation is the driving force behind evolution, he did not explain how that could give rise to beauty. My argument still stands.

Morality is something that changes over time.

unsupported assertion: You have to argue this, not merely assert it. We only have evidence that people’s view of morality changes over time, not that morality itself changes over time. Sometimes people’s moral views are just wrong and illogical. Have we gotten so politically correct that we have to say that each moral view is no better or worse than another simply because multiple moral views exist? Our own experience and common sense tell us that objective morality exists. If we wish to believe otherwise, we need a reason to do so. My opponent has provided no reason. My argument still stands.

We do not need religion in order to be good.

straw man: I did not argue that religion is needed to explain morality. I argued that God is needed
to explain morality. My opponent did not address this point. My argument still stands.

Even in your Bible it says that slavery is okay.

irrelevance: This proves that some of the people who composed the Bible were barbaric. It does not mean that God does not exist. My argument still stands.

* * *

I must add in a few words about my opponent’s grammar. It is a sign to me that his education level is no higher than that of a 2nd grader. I wish there were a way that someone could be kicked off the site just for having appalling spelling, but that does not seem to be the case. is stuck with this guy. My apologies to anyone else who debates him. I do hope he learns how to spell in the future.

He might do well to not post walls-of-text too. His lack of organizational style is a sign of amateurism and laziness. I hope he works on that too if he intends to stay on the site.


My opponent’s posts display some of the most unintelligent and lazy thinking that is present on this website in general, or in atheist thought in particular. I’d be surprised to debate anyone who displays a lower sign of intelligence. I refuted all of his arguments, and he did not even touch mine. He has no organization to his posts, and seems to think that the videos that he posts can do the work for him. Unless he wants to continue losing, I suggest he buckle down and get serious. No debater on this site will have any respect for him if he continues to debate the way he does now.

Well, it was fun for me refute an opponent’s arguments once again, and to put forth my
own. That was the benefit I got from the debate.

would like voters to realize that I did not require sources, and so did not use any, whereas my opponent used them because he required them. Sources should therefore be called a tie.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 3 years ago
Listen, Daniel

I don't know what world you're living in, but in this world, people debate all different kinds of topics, regardless of whether or not the conclusions of each side result in the implementation of a motion.

The fact that a particular debate is not concerned over what kind of motion should be implemented does not make the debate invalid. That is illogical thinking.

And you contradicted yourself. Your belief that debates are not supposed to be based on a person's belief is itself a belief which can be debated. Debating beliefs cannot be avoided.

Please get your head examined.
Posted by Daniel_Debates 3 years ago
This debate is extremely invalid. A Debate is supposed to be modelled on the ethics or implementation of motion rather than the principle.
A debate CANNOT be based on a person or group's beliefs, for they are BELIEFS. Thisould be closed before you embarass yourselfs.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sojourner 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Philochristos regarding the unnecessary remarks and likewise awarded conduct to Con. S&G were clearly in Pro's favor. Tie on sources as Con's were not germane and Pro offered none. Arguments to Pro as Con did little to refute Pro's case, and Pro addressed each one of Con's points.
Vote Placed by philochristos 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: I gave conduct to Con because Pro added unnecessary insults to his criticism of Con's spelling, grammar, and intelligence. I gave spelling and grammar to Pro because Con's spelling and grammar were horrible. I gave arguments to Pro because Pro effectively refuted all of Con's arguments, and Con was unable to defend his or refute Pro's. In the second round, Con's post was barely even coherent, and seemed to just be rambling.