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

God Debate Switch-a-roo

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 611 times Debate No: 89261
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)




Con-- Me, I am christian and will argue that god DOESN'T exist.
Pro-- You, you must be atheist and will argue that god DOES exist.

The purpose is that after I calmed my christian bloodlust against atheism in my first month here i got bored of the god debates that take up about one-fifth to one-seventh of our beloved site.

So i want to spice it up a bit.

And the christian god as described in the bible (for standard lets use the KJV) is the god we are arguing about existing.

I have a url for you:


VOOOOOOOTERS!!! VOTERS! Hey voters! Please read the rules below as they must be enforced. Thank you!


Modified Definitions & Rules (MD&R)


1). Con must be christian and argue against god's existence.
2). Pro must be atheist and argue for god's existence.
3). Exception for pro: If you are agnostic i will let you argue pro.
4). When pro or con unless specified uses a word for which i have provided a modified definition for its definition is always the modified definition i have provided.
5). Pro may also create these "modified definitions" but cannot change or make another modified definition for a word i already have done so for. Mine are universal and necessary to be specified for the debate to go smoothly.
6). All modified definitions must be created in the first round.
7). If rules 1, 2, or 3 are not followed it is an automatic loss for the offender.
8). If rules 4, 5, or 6 are not followed the offender is to be voted by all voters as having bad conduct. If BOTH of us break any of them then voters are to vote that we had equal conduct.
9). Disobeying the round specifications is to be punished by the voters by awarding the opponent "convincing arguments".

--Modified Definitions--

God- The christian god as described in the KJV Bible. Is an entity that is thought to possibly exist.

Entity- Something capable of thought.

Thought- The creation of ideas and opinions.

For all definitions not modified refer to here:



Round 1 -- Acceptance/Introduction
Round 2 -- Arguments/Rebuttals
Round 3 -- Arguments/Rebuttals
Round 4 -- Arguments/Rebuttals
Round 5 -- Conclusion/No new arguments or rebuttals


--For pro:--

You hold BOP.
You must be atheist or agnostic.
You are arguing for god's existence.
Good luck.


Hello, i am The Holy Macrel.

I will be arguing against god's existence.


I wanted to do this with someone just recently! :)

Want to do the other way around afterwards?

I accept the terms of the debate.

Go God!
Debate Round No. 1


So for a pre-emptive anti-god bullet...

No. Evidence.

He doesn't allow any to exists so
we will have "free will" supposedly.

So good luck with that one.

You cannot prove he exists without evidence.


Bound_Up forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


I command thine debate to continue, thus it shall extended.


My apology, mon ami. The forfeiture was entirely a mistake.

I'm glad we've got the five rounds; we can still go somewhere, I think.

Bayesian evidence is the most complete kind of evidence.

Anything which is more likely to be observed if a hypothesis is true, than if it is false, is evidence for the hypothesis.

I'll first establish the plausibility of the God hypothesis, and then add in evidence to suggest that beyond its palatable plausibility lies its lovely likelihood.

Consider the universe, existing as it does, and in no mundane form. Why should it exist at all? And why, if it does exist, should it exist in an order-permitting, life-permitting form?

It is a feature of the observed universe that all things have causes. There must be a cause to the universe, from outside, or beyond the universe. A transcendent cause.

Now, if I may preemptively rebut your rejoinder, why does the transcendent cause not require a cause for itself?

Let us be more precise with our conclusions, sir! We have observed that it is a feature of the UNIVERSE for all things to need a cause.
It would be an error of hasty generalization to suppose that ALL things must therefore require a cause, whether they be in the universe or not!

We have no observation of things outside the universe, thus no data on which to base a conclusion that the transcendent cause of the universe must itself have a cause.

The transcendent cause reveals more of its nature in the nature of what it has created. Our universe has a variety of constants, which define its essential nature, and provide the constraints for what may exist within it.

Out of all the possible constraints that could have been attached to our universe, we find that the ones we do have are exceedingly rare in certain particulars.

Indeed, most series of constraints would have made life of any kind impossible. The universe would merely consist of a static ball of matter, or of an amorphous empty space, sparsely populated with sub-particles so far apart from one another as to never interact at all.

Consider a target, a million miles wide, with a bull's eye the size of a quarter. Should a dart be found placed directly in the dead center of the target, in the center of the bull's eye, we might infer a number of things, the very least of which being, that it was there on PURPOSE.
Placed by someone capable of making such a mind-boggling mark.

This is indeed analogous to our universe, for as it turns out, were any of the universal constants a tiny bit bigger or smaller, life would be impossible. Not merely life as we know it, but life of any kind. Indeed, anything of ANY interest would be impossible.
Were any of the constants bull's eyes, but not dead center in the bull's eye, it would be enough to upset the delicate balance of the universe.

And we have instead, a precisely placed dead-center bull's eye, not once, but a couple of DOZEN distinct times, together in their improbable placement allowing for a phenomenon of a not mundane nature: life. Intelligent life, no less.

And so we can arrive at the conclusion of a purposefully created, life-centered universe from a transcendent Creator.

Now we have plausibility, let us move on to probability.

There are, in the workings of men and women, certain unnatural events, revealing unnatural causes. Or, better put, there is the fingerprint of SUPERnatural workings in this world.

Consider, for example, the apostles of Jesus Christ.

Many of them died extremely predictable deaths, the result of their preachings.
The deaths might have been avoided at any time, were they willing to recant their preachings.
Add the intriguing fact that worldly powers went out of their way to try and GET these apostles to recant, not satisfied with merely killing them or something, they were obsessed with getting them to recant. Why care?

Recall Bayesian evidence. Anything which is more likely to be observed if a hypothesis is true than if it is false is evidence of the hypothesis' truth.

All of these observations are more likely to happen in the world in which the Christian God hypothesis is true, with the work of good opposed by evil, with men and women taking either side, and battling against each other.

What other hypothesis might you posit? That the apostles were lying? Why then die for the lie? Were they surprised by the threat of death, not able to recant fast enough to save themselves? Not so; they had ample time. Were they deluded? It would certainly be a fantastic coincidence for them all to be deluded the same way, now wouldn't it? And then to have extremely improbable success in spreading their delusion, more improbable still.

And why should they be opposed; why should their denial of Christ be sought so obsessively? There are alternate possibilities, a series of coincidences between uncoordinated world leaders across countries and continents. But the most likely explanation is that they WERE coordinated by a common source of evil, in an attempt to battle history's greatest work for good.

And so, Christianity moves from plausible to probable. If you seek further evidence, Christianity makes no attempt to hide from providing a personalized test for the sincere seeker of truth.

Test the teachings of God, and see for yourself if they are not sweet and good. If they are not everything they are promised to be. If they do not provide everything for the human soul that they are predicted to provide in advance.

Pray to God and see if he does not speak deeper to you than the eyes and ears, if he will not speak the truth directly to your mind and to your heart.

Test God as he has been tested by billions, test his teachings and his promise and find what billions have found. That there is a God, who prepared this life for you, who prepared you for this life, who has prepared a path forward through life, and a way to a better world.

Open your eyes and find God outside yourself, in the universe which bears his mark, which universe he bears in gentle hands.
Close your eyes and find God within yourself, speaking to you the simple answers to the deep questions of life, the universe, and everything.

Godspeed, my friends.
Debate Round No. 3


That is an opinion at the target argument.

You must prove it.

You hold a little, annoying, horrific role in this debate called BOP.
(it is noted in the first round)

No matter how probable you need certainty.


Won't do.


Won't do.

You need %100.

*note to pro. I am impressed at that argument. that looks amazing from a christian's perspective.*


*my thanks*

Hmm...I make no claim to prove anything to 100%.

I don't even believe in God with 100% certainty.

I only say, that it is more reasonable to believe in God, than it is to not believe in God.

If you think that means you win, that that's what the burden of proof is, so be it; I can only show the truth for what it is.

For what it's worth, independently of whether you win the debate or not, the arguments put forth are sufficient to lead the willing soul to search for the truth. And if they seek, then will they find.

As for Bayesian evidence, it is no mere opinion of mine. I recommend the topic to your study. How could anything which is more likely to occur if a hypothesis is true than false NOT be evidence for it?

How could any evidence NOT be something that was more likely to be observed if a hypothesis were true than false?

Bayesian evidence allows you to update the probability that a given hypothesis is true incrementally. Every piece of evidence can be precisely integrated into the calculation. It allows for a calculation based on the fullest use of evidence.

It works like so.

If one out of a million times, someone tells a story of eternal significance and is threatened with death if they don't recant, and then they just DIE even though they're lying...
And the other 999,999 times they tell the story, are threatened, and die because they're telling the truth...

Then out of a million observations of someone dying for a story like this, 999,999 of them will occur when they're telling the truth, and once it'll occur even though the story is a lie. Pick one at random, and a million to one you'll pick one where the dead one was telling the truth.

So an observation of this kind is million to one evidence that the story is true. Just imagine how you would naturally think of someone who died before they would say something was false. How often would you figure they knew it was false and just died for it anyway?

Now suppose that the odds of a resurrection from the dead are one out of ten billion times.

multiplied by

Comes out ten thousand to one that the story is false, anyway, just because it's more likely that something freakishly unlikely got someone to die for a lie, than it is for something as freakishly unlikely as a resurrection to occur. So our new odds are 10,000 to 1 against a resurrection.

But suppose we observed ANOTHER martyr's death under similar circumstances.

multiplied by ANOTHER

And the odds end up at one hundred to one that the story is TRUE.

And so on.

Check how often an observation happens when a hypothesis true, and how often it happens when it's false.

The proportion of the former to the latter is the probability that the hypothesis is true.

Multiply that by the probability from all the other evidence, whether it's 1/1,000,00 or 1,000,000/1, and that's your end probability of the truth of the hypothesis.

But, you'll notice, you never get beyond probabilities. We must learn to be comfortable with them.

Action amid uncertainty. This is faith.
Debate Round No. 4


But certainty is necessary in this debate.


Not a fake, I just won sorry.

Not a fake sorry.

I am genuinely sorry because that argument is
beautiful and I need one sentence re-stating a
rule to take it down.

I am being legit.

But I need the wins...

Great job.

No new arguments, next is conclusion.

'.' <-- supposed to be an ASCII sad face.


Well, then.

I suppose I'll just leave my fate in the hands of the audience. They may judge as they will.

Would anyone else like to do a debate like this?
I have in mind one of us taking pro, and the other con, and then we switch, the one taking con, and the other pro.

I'd like to do this on any of the following issues:
1. We can have as much morality without a God as we can have with one.
2. Philosophy does not support the truth of Theism.
3. There is no scientific evidence for God.
4. Spiritual experiences are not evidence of God.

So if you select 3 and you want to start as PRO:

Then you'll argue that there is no scientific evidence for God, and I'll argue that there is.
AND then we'll do a second debate, in which you'll argue that there IS scientific evidence for God, and I'll argue that there's NOT.

As a bonus, we can see if anyone can tell that we're faking when we are.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 6 months ago
I will start another.
Posted by jglass841 6 months ago
Too bad, a forfeiture. This has the premise to be an interesting debate.
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 6 months ago

I might do a Santa vs. No Santa...
Posted by TheDebaytDood 6 months ago
Well, I think this is debate is absolutely smashing. I applaud the rules and ideas set forth by The-Holy-Macrel and I cannot wait for the voting to begin.

Preemptively, I wish to say that I shall argue for the existence of God in the comments section.

Good luck to the lot of you!
Posted by SgtHakeswill 6 months ago
Well, I'm an atheist who attended a Catholic elementary, middle, and high school. I'm willing to debate this with you and I meet your criteria.
Posted by canis 6 months ago
You could as well have a debate about Santa vs. no Santa ....
Posted by RetroRanter 6 months ago
I wish I could debate this :( it seems so interesting.
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 6 months ago
This is a serious debate so i want a really serious opponent.
Posted by mangolife23 6 months ago
Welp I was going to accept but apparently I don't live up to your criteria :/
Posted by DavidMancke 6 months ago
It would be more interesting to debate a theological position from a secular point of view. This would be one that allows for either side to use both scriptural supports as well as secular supports for a resolution with a shared burden.

I have a pet topic too; On balance, evangelical Christianity is socially and scripturally amoral.
No votes have been placed for this debate.