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

God Does 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: 3/17/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,393 times Debate No: 31388
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)




(A) Stating the Resolution in Clarity

Before us today we are faced with the simple and short resolution, 'God does exist'. I, as the affirmative case, take the position that this is a true proposition - particularly, that God (denoted by a captial 'G') does in fact exist; it represents a true fact about the world. While on the other hand, someone who takes the position against the resolution (i.e. the negative) is purporting a view that the proposition "God does exist" is a false proposition.

As such, the negative is not contending his case against mine on the basis of mere opinions, but rather is to offer reasons as to why his position is true (i.e. "God does not exist"). We will call these reasons premises, and thus my opponent will move from mere opinion to structured argument - which can be questioned or challenged - to establish a conclusion.

(1) Defining Theism

To be clear, I am not advocating a view of pantheism (could also be considered 'naturalistic theism'), or panentheism ('All in God'), but rather theism. I will define theism as the following:

Theism believes that one infinite, personal God is the ultimate reality... this God created the universe, disclosed Himself to mankind, and gets involved with this world and us, unprompted by any force outside Himself. He is transcendent over the world and immanent (currently present and active) within it" (R. Cornish, '5 Minute Apologist'; cp. 2005, p. 78)

To expound further on Cornish's claim of 'person-hood', Richard Swinburne writes, "By person I mean an individual with basic powers (to act intentionally), purposes, and beliefs" (R. Swinburne, "Is There A God?"; cp. 2010, p. 5). According to this definition, theists mean to say that due to God's faculties of perfect and non-coercive actions, He is able to act 'intentionally' (Ibid. p. 6) with the affairs of the world.

By virtue of natural theology I will be establishing the following attributes:

(a) Eternality
(b) Immaterial
(c) Uncaused (i.e. 'Self Existent')
(d) The inability to be changed

For clarity's sake of my position:

(1.a) Not restricted by time or space;
(2.b) Cannot be changed by anything other than itself;
(3.c) Did not have a beginning in time;
(4.d) Does not need things other than itself to continue its existence;
(5.e) Whose attributes are not influenced by other things (which means that it has essential attributes, not accidental ones).

(*) List taken from Winfried Corduan's 'Cosmological Argument'; cp. 2007, p. 210. My position will be most exemplified as well as further expounded as my argument develops. As such, let us define properly how I will take to mean atheism.

(2) Defining Atheism

I will be defining atheism as, "'Atheism' means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; 2004). According to the Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology (The Origins of American English Words) on the origins of the word 'atheism', it writes: "(n.) 1587, borrowed from Middle French atheisme, from Greek atheos denying the gods (a- without + theos a god + Middle French -isme -ism) - atheist n. 1571, borrowed from Middle French atheiste, from Greek atheos + Middle French -iste -ist. (cp. 1995, p. 44)

(2.1) The Problem with Defining Atheism as the 'Absence of Belief'

George Smith in his atheological volume "Atheism: The Case Against God" (1979) gives a discussion on a rather wrong definition of atheism that I hope to clarify before my audience. He writes:

The prefix "a" means "without," so the term "a-theism" literally means "without theism", or without belief in god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief. One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist" Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absence of belief (p. 7, cp. 1979; Promotheus Books).

The problem with this definition (see his chapter on Atheism) is that Atheism presupposes Theism. In other words, atheism is the default position while theism attempts to challenge the status quo. However, this is most notably not the case. The status quo does not presume "an absence of belief in god(s)" while theism challenges that quo.

Therefore, I hope my opponent does not take this position (as I have shown it to be false) and wrongly assume that there is no burden of proof on his shoulders. Let us now examine my case for theism.

(3) The Cosmological Argument

According to the kalam Cosmological Argument ("kalam" is the Arabic word for "speech"), the premises function as rather mathematical in scope, and also appeal to certain contemporary evidences from Big Bang Cosmology to support the conclusion of a First Cause bringing the universe into being. For the rest of my argument, I will be referring to the following argument:

(1.0) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
(2.0) The Universe began to exist.
(3.0) Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

This syllogism follows the basic criteria of valid deductive logic (i.e., the terms distribute, the conclusion follows, etc.), but our question before us is whether or not the argument is sound (true). The argument establishes a few things: (i) the impossibility of an infinite regress, (ii) the beginning of the universe a finite time ago, and (iii) personal agency bringing the universe into being.

I will now establish premises (i)-(iii) in support of the given syllogism.

(3.1) The Impossibility of an Infinite Regress of Causes

I will be using the following argument for this matter:

(1.1) An actual infinite cannot exist.
(2.1) An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
(3.1) Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

The nature of this argument can be most notably at length seen in Aristotle's Physics (see 3.5.204-263^b3). To expound with William Lane Craig when he writes:

"The only legitimate sense in which one can speak of the infinite is in terms of potentiality: something may be infinitely divisible or susceptible to infinite addition, but this type of infinity is potential only and can never be fully actualized" (W. L. Craig and J. Sinclair, 'The Kalam Cosmological Argument'; cp. 2009, p. 103)

The key difference between an infinite set and an indefinite collection (as Craig notes on p. 105) is that the former has an infinite number of members conceived as a determinate actual whole, while the latter only increases perpetually. As such, I am purporting the following:
  • Unless there were an infinite being, there could be no finite beings.

Consider Winfried Corduan when he writes, "In the chain of contingent beings that are mutually dependent on each other, there are only two options. Either there is a cause outside of the chain that actualizes the potential without being actualized by it, or there simply are no contingent beings" (see W. Corduan, Ibid. p. 214).

He later then writes, "If an entity is dependent for its being on another entity, which itself is dependent on another entity, it does not matter how long a chain of mutually dependent entities you create or whether you link all of these things in a circle; unless there is an entity outside the chain, you will never get an actual being. And since we know that contingent beings exist, there must be such a being." (Ibid. p. 214).

For this to be possible (i.e. contingent beings), a being like the one listed in (1.a-5.e) must exist. Therefore, I take the possibility of infinite regress to be impossible, and the finite nature of the universe to be established.

(3.2) Personal Agency

If this Cause is a First Cause, and brought the universe into being a finite time ago, then it follows that this Cause has personal agency to his willing of the universe to come into being. I will expound on this issue more abroad to my opponents attack of this Cause being personal (since I take Impersonal or Material Causes to not have the power of will, or intentionality).

I now leave the floor for the negation open to a rebuttal.



The question whether god does exist or doesn't is a mere assumption. It cannot be proven, nor can it be disproven. In the end, we rely on our senses and thoughts that have so far only touched the surface of what really lies out there. Now another important point would be defining what one means by a god. Is it the personal one or the god of love, the panthestic one and so on. You sir, believe in and defend the personal god. A god that understands our language, our culture etc..

There are several reasons why I do not believe in the theistic god

(1) There is no shred of evidence for his existence(scientifically speaking)
(2) We don't need a god. In a universe where there are strict laws such as the gravititational law, or the strong force, electromagnetic or weak force, we could already say that not only is there no evidence for a god but we also make him unnecessary( science)

It was us that created god in our own image and not the other way around.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank the negative for his case.

(A) Critiquing the Negative Case.

The negative has offered no reasons, arguments or evidences that suggest as to why the given resolution is false. As a matter of fact, not only has he not done such, he hasn't even so much given the courtesy of rebutting any of my arguments. For this, I will now examine my opponent's "case".


My opponent suggests that "The question whether god does exist or doesn't is a mere assumption. It cannot be proven, nor can it be disproven." This is a false statement, since the given proposition "God Does Exist" can be just as equally verified as it can be falsified. By this, I do not mean to say that at some points in the discourse of trying to find God, it is either sometimes true, false, or even shady. By no means; theism can be falsified by virtue of the problem of evil, reduction ad absurdum arguments, or some other counter-factual.

If my opponent thinks that theism cannot be falsified, then I lay a BoP on my opponent to show how this is so. Since I think there are good reasons to consider theism as true (see my first affirmative), my opponent hasnt even surfaced to address these issues.

(A.2) There is No Evidence

My opponent at this point has made statements that are required to be backed up by reasons, and as such, has not done so. My first inclination is to ask what my opponent means by evidence. If he means evidence as the means to shift us into the realm of rational belief, and thinks that this means is by method of empirical verification (i.e. sense data), then I would ask my opponent to provide evidence for this definition if that were the case.

More over, this still would not count as a counter-factual to theism. The "Absence of Evidence" does not follow to "Evidence of Absence" for the existence of God. My opponent has committed the non-sequitir fallacy if he thinks that this constitutes as a good reason for rejecting theism.

(A.3) Unnecessary Propositional Invoking

This claim is just clearly absurd and a straw man. We are not postulating God as a natural phenomena (so that he is susceptible to scientific investigation), or as the explanation as to why water boils, neutron stars collapse, or why I chose coke over pepsi. The universe requires an explanation apart from what natural causation can provide for us. My opponent is just pulling straws.

(B) Concluding Thoughts

In light of my opponents lack of arguments, lack of relevancy, and lack of coherence in reasoning, I urge you to vote in the affirmation of this resolution since the only argument avialable still stands in favor of theism.


1111111111 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent still has shown no adequate case against theism.

Vote Pro.


My opponent started a silly debate, but now I shall end it with common sense from my side.
The first thing I want to settle here is what I mean by evidence.
Evidence is something helpful in forming a conclusion or judgement.
It is only considered valid if it can be falsified at all times.

The reason why god most likely does not exist is because it was us that created him in our own image and not the other way around.
We have surpassed the days in which we had to say that it was god that created this world. Most of the time, the term god was used to oppress people and make them feel pretty bad about themselves.

We have dismantled god.
1.) knowing that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
2.) thanks to a law called gravity, phenomenas like the big bang are possible to form themselves.
3.) Dna. Information passed on from generation to generation which would disprove all this religious nonsense about god creating each and one individualy.
4.)the laws of thermodynamics
5.)law of gravity. can be considered a heartless, indifferent god.(so there is an entity after all)
6..) evolution. the fact that we humans evolved and that pretty much all animals share a common ancestor is astounding.
All these points do not disprove the existence of god, but they make him unnecessary.
Vote for me because you people have something called COMMON SENSE.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 1111111111 3 years ago
Well if no one is taking my points seriously, what other choice does one have.
Besides, I lost, so what difference does it make?
Posted by Eitan_Zohar 3 years ago
Had I arrived in time I would have given Pro conduct because begging for votes is usually frowned upon over here...
Posted by 1111111111 3 years ago
this is so biased. His christian, conservative friend voting for him.
Posted by ChristusExemplar 3 years ago

I don't think you really understood what I had meant in making that comment. You quoted me illegitimately saying, "the instigator literally just said that the proof of God's existence is exactly equal to the proof of God's non existence, which leaves us where we are in reality". That is not what I had said in my debate. I had said the following:

"...the given proposition "God Does Exist" can be just as equally verified as it can be falsified. By this, I do not mean to say that at some points in the discourse of trying to find God, it is either sometimes true, false, or even shady. By no means; theism can be falsified by virtue of the problem of evil, reduction ad absurdum arguments, or some other counter-factual."

Here I do not mean to say that proofs level out, and therefore we are left with no definitive answer on the matter. What I mean is a Wittgensteinian principle of propositional falsification; in other words, that for any proposition to be true (e.g. "God Exists"), it must also be capable of being false. For instance, if I say that "We do not exist", then how might that claim be falsified? It most assuredly could be true, but the important question is what kind of counter-factual would exist against it in order for its truth-hood to be denied.

The same thing goes for theism. We should not even consider the possibility of it being true if it cannot be falsified. Thence, my BoP was shifted onto the negative ('contender') to show if theism cannot be falsified, then he must offer reasons as to why this is so. As do you.
Posted by wildcard173 3 years ago
I don't think that this is really much of a worthwhile debate. As the instigator said in his/her 2nd argument, "... the given proposition "God Does Exist" can be just as equally verified as it can be falsified."

In other words, the instigator literally just said that the proof of God's existence is exactly equal to the proof of God's non existence, which leaves us where we are in reality...No one can difinitively say "Yes" and no one can difinitively say "No".

Therefore, the debate "God does exist" cannot be won because it cannot be proved. Likewise, a debate stating "God does not exist" also could not be won for it cannot be proven.

The only logical debates on the God question would have to do with probablility, liklihood, logic, reasoning, etc. I think it is important to note that because of the wording of the title itself, a "No" vote should not denote someone's disbelief in God's existence, but rather it reflect's the voter's acknowledgement that we do not know beyond a reasonable doubt that God does exist.
Posted by jackintosh 3 years ago

I would first like to say I was neither commenting on your position nor referencing your argument in the main debate, therefore I am not attacking you for a position that is not yours.

I am also not saying that believers say natural phenomena have god at their roots, although I am sure some do. I am simply using these as examples of why a god is not needed when examining the universe. This explanation, I felt, was relevant because Samurai asked if I believed for which an explanation was in order.

This was the shortest method of conveying a point I would make as to why god is a theory I would not need to subscribe to. Another example is "what was before the big bang," many say god created the universe so god was before the big bang. My rebuttal would be, we are the same as the uneducated person seeing a natural phenomena that he does not understand, but leaping to the answer of god is not one in which I would be willing to accept.
Posted by ChristusExemplar 3 years ago

Everything you have said is not only a red herring (irrelevant), but also a straw man (attacking some other position that isn't mine). No one here has said that natural phenomena such as gravity, magnetic fields or what have you have their grounding in supernatural causation/interference, if this is what you mean. It is not even anything close to such.

Your comment is surely just ridiculous.
Posted by jackintosh 3 years ago
I do not, as I would hope my previous comment would suggest.

The idea of a deity is neither required nor wanted when considering rational reasons for how the everything in, and including, the universe works. Show a person unfamiliar with magnetic fields a magnetic floating globe, they will think it is a supernatural occurrence, possibly of divine origin. Although this is a decent leap of assumption for an uneducated individual; teach the explanation and knowledge of the "magic" and it suddenly deprives the individual the need for a god. The idea that since science at the moment can not explain everything in nature, does not mean it is god. Labeling ignorance God is not proof. We are simply that ignorant individual that has yet to learn the rational behind the "magic."
Posted by samurai 3 years ago
jackintosh do you believe god exist?
Posted by jackintosh 3 years ago
The question, I would think, is without human intervention in the creation of this "God" would the proof of the deity exist. For example, it would not need human imagination for the evidence of gravity, things fall whether or not we are there to contemplate the reason. However, the idea of "God" needs humanity to interject him into reasoning, the effects of gravity makes things fall but it take humanity to interject and exclaim that it is "Gods" influence.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Common sense dictates that I vote for the person who put forth arguments in favor of his view, not the person who was, for the most part, unresponsive. Also, conduct to Pro for Con's 2nd round forfeiture. Also sources to Pro because he used a few legitimate sources whereas Con used no sources at all.