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

God Exists

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 with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/29/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 534 times Debate No: 75933
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)





mfigurski80 challenged me to this debate, and, suffice to say, I am sure it will be an interesting discussion. Since this is my favorite debate resolution, I shall enjoy this, regardless of the outcome.

There is a minimum required Elo of 2,000 to vote on this debate. I hope there are multiple good RFDs. I look forward to an interesting debate.

Full Topic

God likely exists.


All definitions are influenced by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the American Heritage Dictionary, and the Oxford Dictionary.

- the immensely great, omnipotent, omniscient, intelligent, transcendent cause of the universe.
Likely - probably; >50% chance of.
Exist - have physical or metaphysical, objective reality.

Note that Pro must attempt to prove God as defined exists, and Con must attempt to disprove it; thus, an argument saying "you cannot ascribe properties to a being unless it exists" is irrelevant.


1. No forfeits.
2. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be in an external link or within the debate.
3. No new arguments in any rounds except the opening round.
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere.
5. No trolling.
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution).
7. No deconstructional semantics.
8. The BoP is shared -- Pro must argue that God likely exists, and Con must argue to the contrary.
9. Pro must present their case in round one and waive the final round.
10. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.


R1. Pro's case
R2. Con's case, Pro rebuts Con's case
R3. Con rebuts Pro's case, Pro rebuts Con's case, defends and crystallizes
R4. Con rebuts Pro's case, defends and crystallizes, Pro waives


...again to mfigureski80 for challenging me to this debate, and to all voters.



First, I'd like to thank tejretics for allowing me to debate with him. As everyone can probably see, I'm relatively new here, and I really have no experience on this topic. Please bear with me, and don't hold me to specific words. It's the idea I want to transmit. So, thanks for the invitation!

(A) As my partner stated: God - the immensely great, omnipotent, omniscient, intelligent, transcendent cause of the universe. If God is truly omnipotent, meaning that he can really do anything, he can also create himself without existing prior. So, you know, like in Terminator or something. Bright flash of light, and there he is. God. He would create himself, because of his omnipotence.

Before I go on, I would like to state that omnipotent beings are still omnipotent when non-existant. For example, an unexistant orange is still orange, despite it's unexistance. There's a whole philosophy concerning non-existant objects, which supports my point. Objects, or at least non-existant objects, all exist. In fact, every language that I know of calls unexistant objects existant. Words like "something" or "someone" allow us to create unexistant objects and use them in reality. In the sentence "Someone ate my lunch", that someone doesnt officially exist, yet we think he does. Lets use Santa as an example. Santa (MAJOR SPOILER) doesn't exist. And so nobody could argue against the fact that Santa is an unexistant person. Deriving from that is the statement: "There is an unexistant person, namely Santa". And so Santa (MAJOR SPOILER FOR ADULTS) technically does exist, but as an non-existant person. But let's think for a minute. How does the real Santa, if he existed, differ from the non-existant one? Well, the real Santa is exactly the same, except he exists! He has the same traits as the non-existant one, and the same job! Back to God. If God does not exist, we can safely say that God is an unexistant person (or is he an object or place?). And if God is an unexistant person, that means that there is an unexistant person, namely God. But, since God is omnipotent in his unexistant form as well as his existant form, he can create/de-create himself and freely travel between the barrier of existance.

But, when it comes down to to that, why should he even create himself if he can do anything he wants WITHOUT being created? So, instead of creating himself, he created the big bang, then us, and finally led us through history. And we haven't actually seen him yet, because, technically, he doesn't exist physically (and never did). But, since he can influence events in "reality", then we can presume that he exists metaphisically. But... you know... he isn't there because he wasn't created in the "metaphisical para-universe". And so we would have to create another realm, beyond the world of metaphysics. This place would be where non-existant things go, such as God and Santa Claus and that someone who ate my sandwich. Technically, it doesn't exist and therefore is inside of itself, but for now let's just use it a a folder for all unexistant things. That's God; he exists but doesn't. He's an non-existant person, yet he can become existant. He's real, but doesn't necessarily "have reality", as the definition states. What would it mean, to "have reality" anyway? So, to clarify, I wish to give an alternate definition that is grounded in simplicity instead of poetic maxims, as . Provided by me at no extra charge.

Exist - "to be able to be interacted with or interact with other objects based in reality" (If anyone finds an existant object that doesn't follow this definition, or an unexistant one that does, please comment.) (Notice to my partner: as the rules stated, I have asked you beforehand) Objects that exist can and will interact and even change events in our real world. Again, the existing Santa Claus, if he existed, would interact with reality every christmas by giving out presents, and interact everyday by simply taking up space. God, since we have established his omnipotence even as an non-existant being, can interact with reality at any moment. And so God exists.

Those who know of Saint Thomas Aquinas will notice that this is basically a proof for: "God is the uncaused cause".

(B) Anyway, Descartes, famous philosopher and mathematician, thought that the existance of God is a postulate. In an essay titled "Fifth Meditation", Descartes shows us his way of thinking. While sitting around and looking at objects, he notices that there are some hidden geometrical "figures", that he nor anyone can see, yet his mind is fully aware of and has even attributed several properties too. For example, triangles. Those who took geometry will understand just how much can be done with triangles, yet nobody has ever seen one. They have a determined essence in everyone's mind, but don't exist outside. The meditator also "denies that he has come to know the nature of triangles through his senses". Besides, one can actually think of many other hidden geometrical designs that can't be found in the real world. And so the triangle's attributes are certainly true, possibly more true than of real objects because triangles are in the mind. Are there any triangle atheists here?

Descartes reasons by anaology that, like triangles, God exists in his mind and he has been ascribed several properties. One of them is existance, and so Descartes proves that, since the God in his mind has been ascribed this trait, He must exist. If he didn't, He would not be God and then none would be able to imagine Him. Like a triangle with four sides; none can imagine a triangle with four sides. And so, if triangles exist and they have only three sides, then God exists and is existant. Those two are proven the same way.

(C) Another philosophy. If space is infinite, and if the universe created itself, which atheists believe, wouldn't it be possible for other "universes" to spawn beyond ours? If so, there must be an infinite number of universes, and therefore an infinite creative power. And so, according to the "Infinite Monkey Theorem", God must exist.

(D) It's difficult to realistically and actually observe God, but I guess we can instead observe His actions. Before I continue, I would like to remind my partner that testimonies are a valid way of proving anything, including existance, in a federal court. If you find someone who met God and doesn't believe, by all means include his testimony.

Let's start with me. First, I'm actually bound by a legal non-disclosure agreement because of the largest thing, so keep in mind that this is not nearly everything. Personally, I have no right not to believe in God. He's just done too many things for me and my family. It was little things, like when I prayed to him to find legos when I was seven. I looked for half an hour beforehand, prayed, and suddenly there it was, right in front of me. It seemed as if I hadn't noticed it. But there were bigger things too. One time, our family lacked the money to go on any proper vacation. A few nights later, some guy from church showed up on our doorstep to hand us 3,000 in cash. A while later, our landlord decided that he wanted to sell, and gave us a year to move out. Just as the year was ending, we found a perfect little house right next to my school, which was a good hour away beforehand. And then that big thing. Well, all I can say is it changed my life. Our family really depends on God, we would probably have gone bankrupt if we didn't. Now our family holds two expanding buisnesses, we can hold ourself up financially, and we all attribute it to God.

And, of course, there are other people. There are probably hundreds of testimonies from people who ended up in heaven only to return. Colton Burpo, Julie Papievis, Don Piper, even a gang member named Tony. I mean, some of these guys are probably faking it, but there's so many of them, and even one testimonial will prove the existance of God

(E) Since a vast majority of religions want people to believe in them, we can safely assume that God wants people to find Him. This, while it isn't visible in religious people under pressure to swap religions, is very clear in Atheist. Probably because they don't believe in God at all. For example, my partner Tejretics cannot stop thinking about God, which is shown by the vast amounts of debates he held and is holding against God's existance. Furthermore, looking through the website, I found that more than 5/6ths of debates about God's existance that were actually argued were created by atheists.

I understand that Atheists think God is silly, but you must see that, for religious, not believing is silly as well. It's like not believing that the grass stays green when you don't look. And yet, religious people do not create debates about God's existance, even though we could probably show you how silly you are in our eyes. So, Atheist are discomforted by God, who is reaching out to them, and look for ways to make sure that he doesn't exist while thinking about him.

Tejretics, I can tell you that you won't find God by debating him. In fact, debates like these are probably a huge waste of our time, because, no matter if we win or lose, it doesn't change anything. You can find God only through trying to believe, and it'll go from there.

Debate Round No. 1


I thank mfigurski80 for accepting. I shall present my arguments in this round and rebut Pro’s case in the next.


I reject Pro’s definition of ‘exist’, since I did not accept Pro’s request for modification. To ‘exist’, one needs to have reality, not just interact with it.

C1) Argument from incoherence

As Michael Martin notes, the concept of ‘God’ does not refer to a coherent concept, thus attributing existence to it is logically impossible sans coherence [1]. The coherence of an object is determined by the nature and behavior of the object, and the nature of God is incoherent in the property of ‘greatness’ attributed to God.

‘Greatness’ is an inherently subjective term, with qualities that determine greatness dependent on the subject--the subject here being God, whose attributes of transcendence, omnipotence, and omniscience are referenced to ascribe a property of ‘greatness’. To assert that something is great requires a standard for it to become meaningful and coherent.

For example, in a universe with only a pencil and nothing else, one cannot assert the pencil is ‘sharp’, since the term ‘sharp’ is a relational attribute and requires a standard to become meaningful, viz. a pencil that is not sharp, thus objectively defining the inherently subjective property. Similarly, greatness is a relational attribute, and runs into the following problems: (a) a standard is required to render the term ‘greatness’ coherent, and (b) the content of what greatness comprises of is inherently subjective.

For a being defined according to being great, (a) renders God’s very nature a matter of subjective decision, thus ascribing objective properties to the concept lacks coherence, and (b) renders God meaningless unless an objective standard exists by which God can be called ‘great’. This entails a dilemma: either the standard is internal to God or it is external to God. The former begs the question, since then God is self defined, leading to a definition of God being ‘himself’, thus the term ‘God’ is ascribed to anything. The latter is false since God is transcendent, and, sans the universe, there exists nothing except God if he does exist.

C2) Impossibility of a caused universe

a) Requirements for Causality

Physicist Sean Carroll notes two features that allow us to coherently talk about any form of causation whatsoever.

i. Time & the arrow of time (determined by entropy)

ii. Physical laws

Time and the arrow of time are naturally required to speak of causation. Without an arrow of time, it is impossible to coherently speak of a ‘process’ of anything, or a ‘beginning’ of something. The beginning would have to have a fixed point in the arrow of time, without which it is impossible for anything to coherently ‘happen’ over a period of *time* (because there is no time).

For something to ‘occur’, it has to occur with a principle supporting its possibility. Possibility is incoherent without physical laws, as objective properties or actions are incoherent without limitation. It can be illustrated by the paradox of the stone, which admittedly does not disprove omnipotence, but illustrates how physical laws are necessary for anything to coherently have a ‘cause’ or beginning.

Prior to the origin of the universe, there were neither physical laws nor time. Sans these essential features of the universe, to speak of causality is incoherent. That the universe was caused is the primary assumption of deism, and without these properties, a caused universe is incoherent.

b) Eternalism

Another reason why the universe must be uncaused is the truth of eternalism. For something to come into being, there must be a state in time where it first doesn’t exist [2]. Under eternalism change doesn’t ontologically happen and therefore neither does causation [3]. William Lane Craig writes, “[o]n a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction.” [4]

In support of this, J.M.E. McTaggart writes, “Changes must happen to the events of such a nature that the occurrence of these changes does not hinder the events from being events, and the same events, both before and after the change. Now what characteristics of an event are there which can change and yet leave the event the same event? (I use the word characteristic as a general term to include both the qualities which the event possesses, and the relations of which it is a term -- or rather the fact that the event is a term of these relations.) It seems to me that there is only one class of such characteristics -- namely, the determination of the event in question by the terms of the A series.” [5]

According to general relativity, space is ‘stretchable’. This was confirmed by the Friedmann observations and Hubble’s Law, that were used by Georges Lemaitre to propose the Big Bang theory, that states the universe is expanding, which is shown via. the cosmological redshift [6]. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem, derived by Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin, further supports the theory that the universe is expanding [7].

General relativity also yields eternalism, since it models time as a ‘fourth dimension’ of space itself, allowing for the block universe theory to be likely true. Causality cannot be stressed on unless one assumes the presentism ontology of time, which is dubious in light of scientific discoveries supporting eternalism, especially special and general relativity. “Many [scientists and philosophers] have argued against presentism on the grounds that presentism is incompatible with the theory of relativity.” [8]

In special relativity, each observer has their own ‘plane of simultaneity’, a small section of three-dimensional space where all events are simultaneous [9]. “Special relativity suggests that the concept of simultaneity is not universal: according to the relativity of simultaneity, observers in different frames of reference can have different perceptions of whether a given pair of events happened at the same time or at different times, with there being no physical basis for preferring one frame's judgments over another’s. ... So, in special relativity there can be no physical basis for picking out a unique set of events that are all happening simultaneously in ‘the present’.” [10] This entails eternalism.

Experiments from quantum mechanics have also vindicated eternalism. Photons have been entangled through time [11]. An experimenter can choose to entangle photons even when they don’t exist in the present anymore. Other experiments show time is an emergent phenomenon. An outside observer would view the universe as static [12].

There is reason to believe eternalism is true via. God’s nature. God is omniscient, he knows everything possible about the past, present and future. As philosopher David Kyle Johnson argues, for God’s knowledge to be true, there must be the event which makes it true [13]. God’s knowledge about something like, say, a cup on the table is made true by an existing cup on the table. If God’s knowledge had no truthmakers, then his knowledge would be false. What then, makes God’s knowledge about future or past events true?

It would have to be the future or past event. However, since the future is causing God’s knowledge it must exist. If the future is non-existent, there are no properties about the future. Making it impossible for God to know anything about it. This entails the future must exist, as well as the past. Eternalism is therefore implied via. God’s omniscience. As we have shown above, eternalism and a caused universe cannot coexist. Thus, omniscience is incompatible with God’s own properties.

C3) Occam’s razor

a) Deductive

Occam’s razor posits that among a set of explanations, the one with least number of assumptions is a priori most likely [14]. Metaphysical naturalism has less assumptions than belief in God--it assumes only the existence of a physical universe with laws, while religious belief assumes the existence of a physical universe with laws and God. God here is an unnecessary hypothesis, thus can be rejected as a priori unlikely, similar to Russell’s analogy of a teapot [15][16].

b) Subjective

The concept of God involves the addition of various complex properties, many of which we don’t have a coherent understanding of, e.g. greatness, which is subjective, and omniscience, which contradicts God’s property as a cause. This adds to the complexity of the concept of God and the number of assumptions, making God less and less likely via. Occam’s razor.

The resolution is negated.



4. W.L. Craig and J.P. Moreland. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pp 183-184.















mfigurski80 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


While it is unfortunate that Pro forfeited, this shall not really impact me as I need to rebut Pro’s case in this round. I shall, thus, attempt to refute Pro’s case.

R1) Omnipotence


Ob1: If I can render omnipotence contradictory or impossible, it automatically follows that omnipotence is impossible in a non-existent God.

Ob2: This argument only argues for the *possibility* of God’s existence, by saying “God can break the barrier of existence”. That is irrelevant to probability, as the resolution implies. But the argument essentially draws out of modal logic and is, in broad essence, an ontological argument.

Ob3: I reject Pro’s definition of ‘exist’--to affirm the resolution, Pro must demonstrate that God has reality, not just interacts with it, thus this argument is valid if and only if it utilizes possible world semantics, i.e. the idea that omnipotence allows God to interact with reality, thus God breaks the barrier of existence in one possible world, which extends to all possible worlds.

a) Omnipotence Is Incoherent

This is best illustrated by the ‘paradox of the stone’, or the omnipotence paradox, which is generally structured as such: If a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do [1][2].

The only way to refute the argument that says justification of omnipotence is sophistry is to introduce ad hoc hypotheses that fail Occam’s razor [3]. Thus, the property of ‘omnipotence’ is incoherent and cannot be used to justify the existence of God.

b) Possible Worlds & Reverse MOA

This argument is, essentially, a rephrasing of the modal ontological argument--omnipotence demonstrates that God has interacted with reality in some possible world, ergo exists in all possible worlds. This is true because even if God is omnipotent, it only means God *can* interact with reality, not that he does. Which would mean, to reach the affirmation that God exists, one would have to multiply existence in one possible world to existence in all possible worlds, via. a Plantingan interpretation of S5 axioms, which allows for the following axiom: `33;◊A → `33;A → A, i.e. If possibly necessarily A, then necessarily A, and A [4].

The multiplication of possible worlds is flawed as the negative of A can be used to demonstrate it is incorrect--in an ontological argument, A is the statement “God exists”, but A can also be the statement “God does not exist”.

The reverse premise, “It is possible that God doesn’t exist”, entails the reverse conclusion “God doesn’t exist” via. the exact same logic [5].

R2) Descartesian ontology

This argument can be structured in the following syllogism:

1. If properties are ascribed to a being, it exists.

2. Properties are ascribed to God.

3. God exists.

First, I question the first premise, since the first premise begs the question. This argument is easily subject to a reductio ad absurdum:

1. If properties are ascribed to a being, it exists.

2. Properties are ascribed to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

3. The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

The same can be substituted for anything which is imagined, so the basic ontology: “If something can be imagined, it exists.” This is because imagination requires perceiving features of a subject, thus perceiving properties of a subject.

By this logic, any and every product of imagination has to exist, but this has to be justified, and is absurd, thus the statement “God exists”, derived from this argument, is absurd by the very nature of this Descartesian ontology.

R3) Infinite universes

a) Atheistic assumption is *not* always one of simultaneous causality--there are several other explanations, e.g. retro-causality, ex nihilo, bubble universe, and ekpyrotic universe. Thus, this is a bare assertion.

b) Once more, Pro conflates possibility with necessity. If it is possible that there are many universes does *not* imply that there are necessarily many universes. Furthermore, it does not assume there would be infinite universes--‘many’ and ‘infinite’ are distinct.

c) Naturalism does not assume space is infinite. Space is actually finite, and general relativity predicts that space is constantly expanding [6], and rates of expansion may change as the curvature of the universe is likely flat [7].

d) Infinite universes don’t require “infinite creative power”. This is a bare assertion, since it assumes universes need to be caused. But according to physicist Sean Carroll, causality is not required sans time directionality and physical constraint [8], and the zero-energy universe hypothesis supports a universe caused ex nihilo [9][10].

R4) Argument from religious experience

This is, essentially, an argument from religious experience, and I shall address it in that manner. When appealing to which explanation is more likely via. abductive reasoning, these criteria are generally ubiquitous regardless of what philosophy or field of study (including science) is undertaken [11].

1. Has good explanatory power.

2. Is simple (Law of Parsimony).

3. Invokes minimal ad hoc explanations.

4. Is in line with background knowledge.

5. Makes testable statements.

Using an abductive inference to best explanation, I will demonstrate how metaphysical naturalism offers a much better explanation to religious experience than the existence of God. Except #1, metaphysical naturalism offers much better explanations to all the criteria; #1 is probably a tie between naturalism and deism.

#1. For the ‘explanatory power’ argument, I will present a reductio ad absurdum argument to counter religious experience. Recently, there have been ‘scary’ sightings of *fairies*, thus there have actually been experiences of fairies. Does this imply that fairies are real and triggered the sightings? That would be an absurd conclusion, thus an experience is not definite. Thus, metaphysical naturalism has equal, if not greater, explanatory power in explaining religious experience.

#2. The naturalistic explanation to religious experiences pose that these experiences are entirely within the mind, which has one assumption: that it is purely psychological. The theistic explanation is that a deity (assumption 1) interacts with the mind (assumption 2). The theistic explanation has more assumptions, thus naturalism fulfills Occam’s Razor here.

#3. There is an *enormous* diversity in religious experiences, but the naturalistic explanation explains this by saying there is an enormous diversity in already inherent beliefs, while all varied theistic explanations defend one kind of God and can only account for this with ad hoc explanations. While theistic explanations can account for this, it severely weakens the statements with ad hoc explanations.

#4. Metaphysical naturalism roots its very basis with background knowledge, viz. a scientific explanation for the universe not involving God. Background scientific knowledge generally dictates the likely non-existence of God via. quantum superposition, etc.

#5. Naturalism holds that existing physical laws are responsible for everything that happens within the mind, including religious experience. One of the theories for religious experiences are the contact with psilocybin, a naturally-occurring compound produced by more than 2,000 species of mushrooms. “Under supportive conditions, 20 and 30 mg/70 kg psilocybin occasioned mystical-type experiences having persisting positive effects on attitudes, mood, and behavior.” [12] In the 1980s, Dr. Michael Persinger, a neuroscientist, stimulated the temporal lobes of human subjects with a weak magnetic field; the subjects reported an ‘ethereal religious experience.’ [13] A new neuroimaging study with PET scans suggest *physical* stimuli in the brain, specifically in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, superior parietal lobe, and caudate nucleus [14]. There have been no studies that show in any way that God’s existence fueled these religious experiences, thus the naturalistic explanation makes more testable statements.

R5) Belief in God

This argument doesn’t argue for God, thus is irrelevant to the resolution. It merely attempts to convince me to believe in God with no justification, thus can be discounted. Belief in God is not only explained by the existence of God. The resolution is negated.






6. Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow. A Briefer History of Time, p 52.










I would like to apoligize for not posting my round two "rebuttals", and I'll try to include both defense and rebuttal into this post

C1) Argument from Incoherence.

TJ presents a very interesting and known argument that claims that God's greatness was, at some point in time, false, either because there was nothing there for Him to be compared to or because everything else is God as well. (Side question: What if God is everything, and everything is God?)

I think that this debate kind of illusrtates my point well. Currently, I am trying to fit God into the label of God, which has it's own definition, and if God is defined by the definition, God is God. I don't see why this couldn't be different before. God is the being that is greatest, and when there was nothing, God was greatest. Because something is obviously much better and greater than nothing. Now, when there is something, God is still greatest, and therefore is still God.

C2) Impossibility of a Caused Universe

My partner here says that "prior to the origin of the universe, there were neither physical laws nor time". If this very assumed assumption is true, the the universe did not have an origin because there wasn't a point in time where the universe did not exist. So, my partner is basically pretending that we have an uncaused universe, that the universe always was. However, in the previous arguement, he assumes that God cannot be externally defined because God wouldn't be God before the universe began. And so, in the first argument he presumes that the universe wasn't always there!

To TJ: Just pick a view and stick with it. I'm not going to deal with you dropping points and picking up their opposites, and since a majority of our audience believes that the big bang happened and that there is a time before the universe, I deem this argument invalid. It seems like you're third point follows this perfectly, but I'll just disprove that one conventionally.

B) Enternalism

Just to add on, my partner says "for something to come into being, there must be a state in time where it first doesn't exist". Since the universe is created, either by big bang or God, there was a time before it.

In this statement, my partner argues that under Enternalism, God cannot have created the Universe.

However, if enternalism was true, sentient beings would experience every moment of their lives at the same time, and continue doing so for no time at all (because time doesn't exist, according to enternalism). This gives us another problem. Let's say that you need to go to the dentist. You would feel jumpy, nervous, and possibly trying to catch a cold as quickly as possible. But the future iteration of you is already happy that it's over. Since time doesn't exist, you'd feel both emotions at the same time. Except, it doesn't work that way.

C3) Occam's Razor
The basic statement made by my partner is: according to a theorem named Occam's Racor, the explanation with the least amount of assumptions is true. Since theists assume God as well as the physical universe and it's laws, and Atheists assume only the last two, Atheists are right.

I laughed when I saw this one.

Either my partner is a complete idiot, which we know he isn't, or he's pulling my leg. Theists only assume God, because God's omnipotence can create the rest. Atheists assume the universe and it's laws. Therefore, according to the Occam's Razor, Theists are right, and God exists.

Resolution to Part I
My partner provided four different logical proofs that God doesn't exist, one and three contradicting number two, and the fourth an obvious mistake on my partner's part. Let's see his rebuttals!

Part II (Defense)

Ob1 - No, it doesn't. Think about it. If logic is an existant thing, the surely it cannot exist in the unexistant universe. This explains the paradox of the stone, or something named like that. God can create a rock he cannot pick up, and then pick it up, because he is not bound by logic.

Ob2 - Let me rephrase myself then. This is my thought process:
God doesn't exist.
God is an unexstant being.
There is an unexistant being, namely God.

See? Not believing in God is contradictory.

Obj3 - you don't need to accept. The rules state that "Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument" Notice that I have asked in the comments, and therefore I am entitled to change the definition.

A) Omnipotence is incoherent.
Doesn't have to be coherent. That's part of the omnipotence, and I explained this in my first point. I also debuffed the paradox of the stone above, and please don't post more logical paradoxes.

B) A non-existant world is impossible, which is why it doesn't exist. I completely agree with all of your math, and all I'm saying is that it doesn't matter. Non-existant universes don't exist, it's in the name! Which doesn't mean that a certain omnipotent being can't get out...

You said that the reverse statement gives the reverse conclusion. No, it doesn't. Thought process:
God exists
God is an existant being
There is an existant being, namely God.
Therefore, God is placed in the existant universe, and...
He can interact with objects in reality
Therefore, He exists.

Descaresian Ontology

You're analogy to the Flying Spaghetti Monster is invalid as well, since there is an official church of the FSM and a religion. Some truly think of him as God, and so you could easily just switch the "FSM" to "God", in which case we're back to the same problem. In order to actually use this metaphor, you'd have to first prove that the FSM doesn't exist.

And, of course, you'd have to prove that the wildest products of my imagination don't exist, while I could easily get pictures...

Infinite Universes
I'll give you this one. It was kind of slapped together in a moment anyway. Your welcome.

Argument from Religious Experience

#1. If 82% of the world suddenly decides that fairies are real, and if humanity had history based in and around the existance of fairies, we would have to presume that fairies are real. Unless you want to be a thorn in the side.

#2. Athiests believe that it's the envioronment that interacts with the mind. You don't just become religious out of the blue when your mind decides too, it's pushed in by past events and one's environment. For example, if you were born into an athiestic family, you are most likely to be athiest. If you were born into a religious family, you are most likely going to be a thiest. If, due to past experiences, you lose trust in God or discover him, you can switch between sides.
Therefore, Occam's Razor proves nothing since both sides are equal.

#3. All religions (well, majority) believe that there is only one God. All of these religions advocate the helping of one's neighbor, even if he doesn't believe in the same God. All of these religions are utterly compatible with each other, I see no reason why they shouldn't believe in the same God.

#4. There is no background scientific knowledge that even hints and God's unexistance. I really have no clue where you got information from, but Quantum Superposition only speaks of relationships between states. This can neither prove nor disprove God.

#5. Then a majority of the world comes into contact with a whole lot of psilobcybin every week. You know, because people just climb mountains and spray illegal drugs around into the air so that everybody in the area gets a high. And they smuggle tons of the stuff to Israel and places where mushrooms don't grow and do the same thing with helicopters. And nobody has caught onto it yet, because they are the Illuminati. YAh. And they did that 10,000 years ago too.

Great conspiracy theory, but it's one giant hole.

Belief in God
This argument shows that God is reaching out and calling to athiests. Even if my partner doesn't admit and denies this being an argument, it's written right there. Athiests are discomforted by the thought of God, and think about him often. Theists probably think about him less, but believe in His existance. My partner hasn't provided an explanation, because doing so he would admit the existance of God and lose the debate.

My partner managed to catch onto one of my points that I didn't put too much effort into, but the rest stand strong. My partner didn't understand my first point, and he blatantly ignored my last point. I am sort of dissapointed, but I keep my hopes that we can finally understand each other and our viewpoints.

Thanks for reading!
Debate Round No. 3


C1) Argument from incoherence

Pro’s defense is based on this logic--since there is nothing except God outside the universe, God is automatically the greatest being. But that serves only as a defense for greatest being, and an entity can be the ‘greatest’ entity without being ‘great’.

But in this debate, God is defined as possessing immense greatness, which is impossible when paired with transcendence--God may be the ‘greatest’ being if he exists, but cannot be called a ‘great’ being, thus Pro’s refutation is irrelevant.

C2) A caused universe is incoherent

a) Pro’s sole refutation here is that I’m defending a universe without an origin. But that is a straw-man of my argument [1]. As Pro states, I’m defending an *uncaused* universe--but an uncaused universe is *not* a universe without a beginning. An uncaused universe is a universe without a cause. A cause is something that *created* the universe, not the universe’s beginning. The position I defend is a universe that came into existence ex nihilo, i.e. out of nothing. Furthermore, Pro argues there was a “time before the universe”--but that is incoherent. The ‘universe’ is defined as all of time and space and its contents [2], or, as physicists Michael Zeilik and Gregory Boyd write, “[t]he universe is the totality of space and time” [3]. In other words, time is a part of the universe, and, sans the universe, there is no time.

b) This response has two major errors, that I shall attempt to address. First, human *perception* of events is entirely subjective. The second error is what I shall stress on. The events happening prior to the appointment to a dentist and after do not occur at different time--they occur at a different point on the arrow of time [4]. There’s a fundamental difference. Time is another dimension, according to four-dimensionalism [5], while the passage of time is illusory, according to the B-series, which in turn is entailed by four-dimensionalism [4][6]. Time is real, but the *arrow* of time is not. So, the events occurred in different points on the arrow of time--but not different ‘time’. Pro drops the Rietdijk-Putnam argument.

C3) Occam’s razor

Pro asserts that the sole assumption of theism is the existence of God--which means, Pro doesn’t assume the universe or physical laws exist. This contradicts the position of the existence of God, since God is defined as the cause of the universe, which would mean a universe would have to exist for that assumption, so theism does assume the existence of the universe.

R1) Omnipotence

Ob1: This is entirely ad hoc, to claim that “God is beyond logic”. If something is logically contradicting, it cannot exist--everything that exists has to be logically possible.

Ob2: “Belief in God” is irrelevant, since you *concede* God is non-existent. The resolution is not “God is real”, it’s whether God exists--reality can be subjective, as this argument implies, but objective reality has to be present. Unless objective reality is demonstrated, it’s irrelevant.

Ob3: This is hopeless violation of the rules. I said they cannot be changed without asking in the comments, but Pro interprets this as they CAN be changed IF they ask in the comments--this is not what the rules imply. Even IF you ask in the comments, it doesn’t mean the definition is changed--what I said was if you DO NOT ask in the comments, the definition *cannot* be changed. Pro is shifting the negative to the positive. For example, if one says “science can’t explain it” doesn’t mean “God exists”--similarly, if one says “you can’t change without asking in the comments” doesn’t mean “it changes if you ask in the comments.”

a) Omnipotence Is Incoherent

If omnipotence is incoherent, it can’t exist, even if it can interact with reality (you can’t change definitions without my permission--turning a negative claim into a positive claim), thus the existence of omnipotence is questionable.

b) Possible Worlds & Reverse MOA

Pro is confusing ‘reality’ with ‘existence’--reality can be subjective, thus epistemically possible worlds can be real while not existing. Similarly, only the possibility of God is justified, not the necessity.

The reverse MOA doesn’t refute God--it refutes this flawed ontology, which shows that the same logic of extending from possibility to necessity can prove or disprove anything, acting as a reductio ad absurdum to this argument.

R2) Descartesian ontology

I did not assert that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t exist--I’m asserting that the exact same logic can demonstrate that all products of imagination exist, which means you must *prove* this logic is valid. Descartesian ontology is a bare assertion. You’re just shifting BoP and committing the fallacy of negative proof [7], while you must prove that all products with ascribed properties do exist, or it would be ipse dixit fallacy [8]. Basically, the logic of this argument is expressed in the following syllogism:

1. All things exist.

2. God is a thing.

3. Therefore, God exists.

But P1 is only true epistemically, and Descartesian ontology deals with the epistemic possibility of God’s existence [9].

R3) Argument from religious experience

#1. This is a bare assertion, and commits ad populum fallacy, i.e. it is assumed that widespread acceptance of an idea is proof of its validity [10].

#2. Once more, this commits ad populum fallacy [11]. God is an additional assumption, and Occam’s razor IS widely accepted and true, as seen in Russell’s teapot analogy [12].

#3. Pro asserts that majority of religions believe in only one God. But this argument shows that each religion’s view of God is different, thus homogeneity of theological belief isn’t justification. And there are, thus, varying religious experiences. And I’ll give you a list of polytheistic religions: Greek traditional religion, Roman traditional religion, Chinese traditional religion, Shinto, Hinduism, Yoruba, Germanic paganism, Slavic paganism, Wicca, Serer religion, Reconstructionism, Ancient Semitic religion, Ancient Egyptian religion, Ancient Vedic religion, Baltic paganism, Finnish paganism, etc. It seems polytheistic religions comprise a majority in number (though not in followers), so there would be variant religious experiences.

#4. Quantum superposition entails that transcendence would result in particle wave collapse. The majority of scientific understanding yields testability, simplicity, etc., which the God hypothesis does not. Furthermore, that God exists is the positive assertion, and there’s no scientific knowledge to support it--Occam’s razor allows shifting BoP without committing logical fallacies, and background knowledge of science does not yield the existence of God.

#5. There is no testability to demonstrate that God caused these religious experiences. Weak magnetic fields, as illustrated, can trigger such subjective experiences--and the Earth has a magnetic field, so there is a weak magnetic field in many spots across the globe.

R4) Belief in God

Pro asserts that atheists think of God more. This is a bare assertion--I think of God because it’s my favorite debate topic, just like many people think of their favorite debate topics. Furthermore, Pro has given us no reason to believe that this implies God is “calling to atheists”.

The resolution is negated. Pro *must* waive the next round, by simply typing “round waived” or “no round as agreed upon”. Any crystallization, rebuttal, or arguments must be penalized with a loss. Thanks for a fun debate. Vote Con!



3. Michael Zeilik and Gregory Boyd. Introductory Astronomy & Astrophysics, glossary.








11. Ibid.



As cited in the structure, I should have to waive this round. Nice trick, I'll have to try this myself sometime.

Closing Statements:
Thanks to TJ for showing me how to get the most out of a debate, and I highly recommend my partner patch that rule hole I was able to exploit. Nothing meant personally.

Also, thanks to all viewers and voters for taking some time to look through our arguments, and decide which is the better truth.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by n7 1 year ago
Tej didn't show the logical impossibility of them either. He argued atheists aren't bound to accept them.
Posted by n7 1 year ago
The philosophy of Parallelism and parallel universes are two different things.
Posted by mfigurski80 1 year ago
I think TJ disproved existant parallel universes. Would you like to argue with him on his logic?
Posted by n7 1 year ago
Pro's definition of existence is heavily flawed.

"to be able to be interacted with or interact with other objects based in reality"

The logical possibility of Parallelism completely disproves this definition.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
What you have to show here is that an intelligent, powerful being created the universe. That's all.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
If God isn't in objective reality, then he has subjective reality, and one can argue via. solipsism to say subjective reality can interact with objective reality.
Posted by mfigurski80 1 year ago
No it wouldn't, because once one is based in reality one can interact with other objects, which bases them in reality.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
That would cause solipsism. God has reality but is sans the universe. Don't worry, I'm not gonna say "the universe is all reality, so reality sans the universe is incoherent" or such things. He's just the creator of the universe.
Posted by mfigurski80 1 year ago
Permission to change the poetic and therefore unprovable definition of existance from "having of reality" to a much simply "interact with other or be able to be interacted with objects based in reality"
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by n7 1 year ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: FF and Pro has some very bad arguments, in fact most were ridiculous. Like, that God is above logic (ironically that's self contradictory), that all atheists believe the universe is infinite, created itself, and that atheists talk about God a lot. Con pointed out these are strawmen and flawed. The first two are basically rough ontological arguments, the third one is a down right strawman, the fourth one has poor explanatory power and the 5th one is irrelevant. Pro's rebuttals were just as bad like " Theists only assume God" What? Not the universe or physical laws? And that God "Doesn't have to be coherent". These are nonsensical. Con wins on arguments.