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

God Does Exist, ( Christian God )

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: 7/29/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 724 times Debate No: 78226
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (1)




As you can see from the title of the debate, "God Does Exist." I have made a claim that there is a God, and the only other counter claim is that there is not a God. Therefore you and I have to provide evidence for our claims, not by saying things like, "There is no evidence for God" or me saying "There is no evidence against there being a God." That's just escapism from providing any evidence for your claim or position, for instance, according to William Lane Craig, lack of evidence does not create evidence of absence. Meaning that lack of evidence for something does not create evidence for that something not to exist, not to mention that I will still be providing evidence for the existence of God. With this in mind, I would like to see what my oponent has to say before stating my evidence for Gods existence and my rebuttal's.



Thanks for the debate Pro.

When demonstrating something to be true, the person making the positive assertion has the burden of proof.
"God does exist" is inherently a positive assertion and therefore, for the resolution alone, Pro has the burden of proof.

As Con, I make no assertion that god does not exist, rather I argue that the burden of proof for god has not been met; I am reasonable in rejecting the resolution.

Of course, both sides need to provide evidence, especially for any positive assertions made aside from the resolution.
Refutes, retorts, and rebuttals all still have an obligation to meet their "sub-resolution" burden of proof for both Pro and Con.

I am taking a risk by taking a debate without definitions of god that has Con going first, but here's my guess at how this might go.

I reject the claim that the Christian concept of God exists on the grounds that no god has been demonstrated logically, physically, or contingent on physical reality; the burden of proof has not yet been met for god.

1. Logically, first cause arguments for god are infinite regress fallacies, and arguments from design employ an argument from analogy fallacy whereby the analogy of a designed object's similarity to the universe lacks relevance and a variety of examples.

-The Kalam cosmological argument in particular is an infinite regress fallacy hidden by a simple infinitive verb phrase (begin to exist), which then requires a non sequitur to retrofit whatever version of god.

-Arguments from design ignore the fact that we only have one universe, so any analogy to something complex, like a watch, has other examples to demonstrate its design by a human/intelligence.
We only have one example of a universe so the "many examples of a designed product" analogy isn't valid.

2. Physically, the Christian concept of god isn't physical, and is most likely agreed by Pro to not be detectable...however, if I have misrepresented Pro's stance, please let me know.
In which case, if god is physical, what are the properties/mechanisms of god that allow him to avoid detection?

3. Contingently on physical reality, the explanation of god would require something physical for god to be contingent on.
If this is the case, that god is contingent on physical reality, then Con must explain HOW.
Any idea, true or untrue, is contingent on the physical brain.

Whether or not the idea is true is determined by attempting to match the content of the idea with reality.
If the attempt is unsuccessful, and the idea is untrue, then the neurons and brain that the idea is contingent on still exist.
The idea is still however, untrue.
Ideas are contingent on physical reality; god has not been demonstrated to be as such.

So, that's my best shot at predicting how this debate might go.
To sum up for Pro:
1. Do you agree, for the resolution alone, that Pro has the burden of proof?
2. Can you demonstrate god logically without fallacious arguments?
3. If god is physical, what are the properties/mechanisms that allow him to avoid detection?
4. If god is contingent on physical reality, then HOW?

I continue to reject the resolution, god does exist, because the burden of proof for god has not been met logically, physically, or contingent on physical reality.
Debate Round No. 1


Well, let me first start off by saying that your one hell of an opponent for my 14 year old brain.

I would like to first start off by saying that according to you, I have the burden of proof, but according to,

the Philosophical Burden of proof is on anyone who is making a claim, ( As I tried to state in my first argument, )
Debates happen between 2 different claims, in which people try to convince each other of there side.
1. A formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward. ( Taken from searching definition of the word debate on Google )

Anyway I think this part of the argument might just be wasting both of our time so I will move on.

Your first point had some pretty big words in there so I'm going to try to answer as best as I can.
I assume from what you have said, that you want to see if I can prove God with logic. According to a You tube video of William Lane Craig debating an atheist, "If you were to move the atomic weak force as much as 1 part out of ten to the one- hundredth power, it would of not permitted a life permitting universe." That's just one of hundreds of other incomprehensible odds that are universe need to sustain the life that we have.

As a true human being, you would have to be able to look at that and bee amazed. Those odds are just too outrageous, to skip over and just start talking about things like the quantum vacuum or thinks like the universe is infinite.

Your second point I do agree that God is a not physical being. But I do believe he can still interact with our world in a way that we don't understand.

Your third point was a bit confusing in what you were trying to ask me. As I said before super big words can get to me, so I will answer the best I can. I believe that contingent, from what I have researched means that something is needed or necessary for something to happen or to be. Yes I believe that God is contingent on reality, especially from one of the points I made in responding to you first point about the amazing odds our universe would need to be random. Reality is to complicated, as I would see anyone to see true as well. God to me is the best explanation for how life is.

One question I would now like to ask you is if it is wrong to kill a human being based on only the physical world, and no supernatural or Gods.

Also thank you for debating me, good practise for school essays huh?

Extra sources:


Assuming that Pro is 14 years old, that's awesome that Pro is into debating at this age! Keep it up, you learn so much more when you're competing to win debates. Enjoy.

I'll agree that the philosophical burden of proof is on the one MAKING the claim.
REJECTING a claim is not MAKING it.
I reject the claim of god...I do not make the claim of god.

If rejecting were making, then you would have the burden of proof to reject absurd ideas like the boogie monster, magical tooth fairies, or unicorns.
No, if someone makes the claim of the existence of the tooth fairy, then that claimant must meet their burden of proof.

Pro's logical proof for god is "If you were to move the atomic weak force as much as 1 part out of ten to the one- hundredth power, it would of not permitted a life permitting universe."

Well Pro picked a science teacher to argue the atomic weak force with.
First, what do you mean by move the atomic weak force?
What unit of measurement is "part" with respects to moving the weak force?
Can Pro demonstrate HOW one hundredth of this part of the weak force, if moved, would not sustain the life we have?

The atomic weak force is just the force that holds atomic particles's like gravity for atomic particles.
What would it mean to move gravity 1 part out of ten to the one hundredth power?
Pro should respond to my questions to clarify.

Pro comments in addition to the weak force movement claim "Those odds are just too outrageous, to skip over and just start talking about things like the quantum vacuum or thinks like the universe is infinite."
Why is talking about quantum fluctuations "skipping over" the low odds of our existence?

To me, it's "skipping over" to say, these odds are just too outrageous, so god did need to think about whether or not low odds actually indicate an intelligence behind the occurrence, just skip over it and assert god with certainty.

Also, while I agree quantum fluctuations are a fact, I don't necessarily agree that the universe is infinite.

If Pro agrees that god is not physical, but can interact with our world, then Pro should be able to demonstrate the properties/mechanisms that allow god to be undetected, but remain interactive with physical reality.

We can't see air or gravity, but we can detect their effects.
I know god isn't physical like air or gravity, but can Pro demonstrate the effects of god on the physical world?
Has god's effect on physical reality been isolated as a cause? If yes, how?

Also Pro says "I do believe [god] can still interact with our world in a way that we don't understand."
If we don't understand it, how do you understand it?
If you don't understand it, how do you know if your belief is correct or not?

Pro was correct in their definition of contingent.
I don't see how god is contingent on reality because the universe's odds are low.
I also don't see how randomness is negated by low odds.

Things for Pro to explain/answer:
1. Do you agree that rejecting does not equal making?
2. What does "moving the atomic weak force by one part" mean?
3. What is the unit of measurement for "part"?
4. Why is talking about quantum fluctuations "skipping over" the low odds of random existence?
5. How do low odds of life sustainability indicate that the universe is purposive?
6. If god isn't physical, but can interact with the physical world, then how is he physically interacting without being detected?
7. Can you demonstrate the effects of god physically?
8. If god behaves in ways you and I don't understand, then how do you know that your belief in these ways is correct?

I will respond to Pro's morality question.
"[Is it] wrong to kill a human being based on only the physical world, and no supernatural or Gods."

Yes, the negative effects of killing another human exist in the physical world without god(s).
In order for early humans to be successful in building shelter, catching prey, and protecting their offspring, not killing other humans had to be valued.
Debate Round No. 2


I now think I understand what you are saying about the burden of proof, and I now agree with you that the burden of proof is on me, because I have made the claim that God does exist.

Your second question is about what does moving the atomic weak force mean. I would assume that it means, that where ever the atomic weak force is, inside of an atom, say just like milk inside of a bowl ( even though a bowl isn't a full circle, I hope you still get what I'm trying to say ). If the milk inside of the bowl was like an atom with the weak force, was to be moved from that position it is in as little as one part out of ten to the one-hundredth power life would not exist, this as known as fine tuning, in which an event like the big bang has no reason to create such odds.

Onto your third question, I would assume that the 10 to 100th power "part" of my fine tuning argument, would mean that if you divided the distance from lets say the surface of the top of the milk to the bottom, and divided it by 10 to the 100th power, then moved it by the distance you then have after dividing, life would not of been permitted. I am no scientist though, so I may be wrong, but I know that other true scientist have proved that if you move the so called weak force by an incredibly small amount, life would not exist.

Your forth question asks me why I would bring up things like quantum vacuums when talking about odds. I simply stated that, because people can just simply overlook thinks like fine tuning, and jump to things like quantum vacuums when I have clearly stated that you still haven't told me how these odds are possible if life is, I would say "Random," in a way ( correct me if I'm wrong in stating the word random.)

Your fifth question asks me why I would conclude a God for these odds of our universe. I conclude that because I have been shown no evidence that its possible any other way. No one has shown me that's its possible for a quantum vacuum to create universes or a universe with these incredible odds. Therefore the best explanation left for me to conclude is that God did this. Even if you prove to me that this so called quantum vacuum is true, you would still have to explain to me how it just by generating a steady stream of "stuff" would create a universe that we have, instead of a blob of random stuff that doesn't do anything.

Your sixth question, as I assume you would of guest me to answer this way, is that God is transcendent of our reality, therefore is not bound to the physics of this reality.

Your seventh question, was a bit confusing, if you asking me to tell you how God if he is real would have interacted in our world, I wouldn't see the point. You yourself most likely have heard of many stories, and me telling you more would not of been needed, as you would assume then false, but I might of interpreted your question falsely.

According to your eighth question for me, Its no different than if you saw a man use mind powers to move a spoon in front of your eyes, you might not of know how he did it but you assume that's its true, but you most likely are still in disbelief at the same time. This is kind of a trap for me, because if I say that I believe in these ways because of miracles, I will most likely be assumed to be crazy, and lose this debate, so I would like to stay away from this question, and focus on facts and evidence, as I see this question of no good use to this debate.

Your response to my morality question, in my opinion confused what is smart to do with what is wrong to do. For instance, it is not smart to buy stock in a company that you know for sure is going to fail and crash, but its not necessarily wrong, on the basis of morality. If early humans were only based on what is the smart thing to do, then things like stealing and killing people in a village for personal gain would not be wrong, but in fact good.

Ty for this debate! See you around! ;]


First I will correct an error of mine in round 2.
The weak force is not how I described it, I was describing the strong force.
The analogy to gravity for particles was describing the strong bad.
The weak force has to do with the force between leptons and bad again, I confused the terms.

Ok, to respond to Pro:

Pro's logical demonstration for god is that if the subatomic weak force were different just 1 part of 10^100 of an atom then life could not have arisen, therefore, since it appears we have beaten these extremely low odds, it's more likely that the universe was finely tuned by an intelligence.

In short, Pro is saying:
The odds are so low for a life permitting universe that there must be an intelligence increasing those odds by finely tuning the universe, or else it's too unlikely for life to exist randomly.

I argue that the universe is obviously adequate for some life, as we are here, but not finely tuned for life.
Earth is currently the only observable planet to have life, and the Earth itself is not exactly finely tuned for life either given that "99.9% of all species that have ever lived on Earth are now extinct."

A 99.9% extinction rate does not point to something fine tuned for life.

To further illustrate the non sequitur from low odds--> purposive god
Let me make an analogy.

If all polygons had just .00000000000000001 degree more or less than 180 degrees, then triangles couldn't exist.
Mathematicians have figured out that with just this slight change in degree, triangles would not be possible.
The odds of any other polygon existing with inexact amounts of 180 degrees are far higher than triangles existing, making triangles' existence very improbable.
Because triangles require such a low probability, and they do exist, an intelligence allowed for triangles to be polygons.

The point is, that inferring an intelligence because the naturally occurring odds are low is a non sequitur.
So what if the odds are low?
Outliers are part of randomness.
Outliers do not equal a purposive intelligence, and Pro has not demonstrated such by saying "the big bang has no reason to create such would have to be able to look at [those odds] and be amazed."
The odds for life aren't zero, so it's not impossible.

Pro also continues "I have clearly stated that you still haven't told me how these odds are possible if life is, I would say "Random,"... No one has shown me that's its possible for a quantum vacuum to create universes or a universe with these incredible odds. Therefore the best explanation left for me to conclude is that God did this."

Ok, this is a science claim, and I must redeem myself from my previous error.

Physics tells us that something is matter/energy/radiation/atoms/particles/wavelengths.
Without any of these characteristics, we are left with nothing.
This is a state of nothingness.
When you arrive at a state of nothingness, there is a faint physical field of subatomic particles existing and not existing at fractions of time.

This state is unstable and can't stay nothing for long, because so many subatomic particles popping in and out of existence will lead to energy being expressed from these fluctuations.

All positive energy (matter and energy, you and me, planets and stars) is cancelled out by negative energy in the form of gravity.

So at the big bang in quantum fluctuations, positive energy (+matter) and negative energy (-gravity) could be a set:
[+0,-0] no energy or gravity.
At the big bang, energy was expressed from the fluctuations, and so was gravity.
So it might have looked like:
The universe expands
All random, all expressed.
Stars form, and so do planets...maybe some (one we know of) are habitable for life.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ax123man 1 year ago
Interesting, I had posted RFD's detailing each round, but now they're gone. I event saw them in the list after a refresh. Fortunately the one post with the summary was left.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: joetheripper117// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Interesting debate to read, but pro failed to meet his burden of proof.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter gives far too general an explanation for the vote. It's unclear from this RFD what the burden of proof is, how Pro failed to meet it, and which arguments were important towards that end. The presence of the burden of proof alone is not sufficient to show that Pro lost.
Posted by DudeWithAName 1 year ago
Understood, I did try to make a moral argument as well though, but your the voter, and you opinion is what matters here, not mine. I'll just take this all in, and use it to grow on my arguments.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
Thanks for the votes an comments.
Posted by ax123man 1 year ago
First, I took round 1 to be introductions only. Con did provide a brief overview of an array of arguments to his side, but they weren't fully expounded and I'd also like to keep argument rounds even. This threw the debate off as Pro did respond to those arguments. Because of this, my argument vote is based on round 2 forward.

First, I didn't really find the atomic forces arguments convincing either way, however the burden was on Pro, so I have to give that to Con. In fact, the debate rested mainly on the argument of "The odds of this combination of events is too high, so this must be the work of a powerful intelligent being". Con summarized this point nicely in round 3, and then countered with the extinction argument, which has some merit. I also found Cons virtual particles argument interesting.

In the end, the unbalanced nature of the debate rounds left Con with the hammer at the end, and Pro's lack of inexperience, along with Cons knowledge of science won the day.

Spelling and grammar to Con as Pro made several mistakes: "are universe", "bee amazed"
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
100% agreed.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago

Definitely don't think that your reporting of votes is being perceived as an effort to avoid a loss. It's completely understandable that you'd want a better standard for voting on this debate. The desire to improve voting is the whole reason I'm a voting moderator. You should expect reasonable feedback on what you did right and what you did wrong.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago

No, I actually agree with you, they should be providing more reasons for their votes...go ahead and report it.

An unfair win is no win at all!
Posted by DudeWithAName 1 year ago
I have no problem if I loose, I mean of course I want to win, but if I don't that's ok, I just don't understand why all of these voters don't give any Reason to vote what they are voting. That's why I reported the last voter, but I don't care anymore.
Posted by DudeWithAName 1 year ago
Well I've been messing up on all of these comments
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ax123man 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments for RFD.