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

God Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/8/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,308 times Debate No: 36482
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)




Resolved: God Exists

God: The Judeo-Christian-Muslim Senteint Tri Omni Mind (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, ect) who is the Creator of the Universe.

Atheism: The Lack of belief in God(s)

R1: Opening information and Pro's opening arguments
R2: My rebuttal and Pro's response
R3: My response and Pro's closing response
R4: My closing response.

Since Pro is arguing in round 1, in round 4 Pro will put

"For an equal number of rounds, nothing will be posted here, as agreed."

No forfeits
No insults
No semantics
72 Hours to Post Argument
8000 Characters Max
10 Day Voting Period
Start your arguments in Round 1



Yahweh- The God of the Bible. Yahweh means “He exists”. To Moses He said, “Ehyeh”, which means “I exist.” (I argue that this is very clever, whether this name was chosen by God himself or created by humans.)

I will be affirming that Yahweh does indeed exist.

We live in a world where about 2 percent of the population is atheist, about 10 percent are agnostic/non-religious, and 88 percent religious. Of the concept of God that my opponent gave, 50 percent of the world's population adhere to said concept.


These demographics are not given as an argument to prove God's existence, but to supply the reader the understanding of the beliefs of the people in the world. There are enough evidences to convince many people of a Creator; I will now present what I determine to be the most convincing:



Sir Isaac Newton- “The design of God was much otherwise. He gave this and the prophecies of the Old Testament, not to gratify man's curiosities by enabling them to foreknow things, but that after that they were fulfilled, they might be interpreted by the event, and his own providence, not the interpreter's, be then manifested thereby to the world. For the event of things, predicted many ages before, will then be a convincing argument that the world is governed by providence.”

As the amount of prophecy recorded by the prophets of antiquity is overwhelmingly large, I will present only one case of fulfilled prophecy:

In AD 70, the Jewish temple was destroyed, and the Jewish nation became dispersed after this event. For almost 2000 years, they remained as such, until in 1948 they again became a nation, restored the Hebrew language, and in 1967 increased their territory by reclaiming Jerusalem, their praised capital.

“When I bring them back from the peoples and gather them from the lands of their enemies, then I shall be sanctified through them in the sight of the many nations. Then they will know that I am Yahweh their God because I made them go into exile among the nations, and then gathered them to their own land; and I will leave none of them there any longer.” Ezekiel 39:27-28

“Also I will restore the captivity of My people Israel, And they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them; They will also plant vineyards and drink their wine, And make gardens and eat their fruit. “I will also plant them on their land, And they will not again be rooted out from their land Which I have given them,” Says Yahweh your God.” Amos 9:14-15

Sir Isaac Newton was also known to have made predictions about Israel's future: “The Jews will return to Jerusalem in the 20th century.” Ruvic Rosenthal, “The Ostracized Newton,” Al Hamishmar, July26,1985, p.10.

I don't see how my opponent can disprove that this prophecy actually came true, so I suspect he will attack the credibility of prophecy as not being an adequate proof for the existence of God. I argue that this is substantial proof, as God has finally become falsifiable. As previously quoted, “And they will not again be rooted from their land”, this shows that should the Jews ever lose control of Israel, the word of Yahweh would be broken, and thus His existence would be disproved.

I argue that this is an immense prophecy that predicted an entire nation and people coming back together, and as many more prophecies like this have come true, the God who sent these prophecies must exist.

Consciousness Causes Collapse

Here is a summary of what consciousness causes collapse means:

The rules of quantum mechanics are correct but there is only one system which may be treated with quantum mechanics, namely the entire material world. There exist external observers which cannot be treated within quantum mechanics, namely human (and perhaps animal) minds, which perform measurements on the brain causing wave function collapse.”

Here is the problem with consciousness causing collapse:

"[T]he evolution of conscious life on this planet is due to appropriate mutations having taken place at various times. These, presumably, are quantum events, so they would exist only in linearly superposed form until they finally led to the evolution of a conscious being—whose very existence depends on all the right mutations having 'actually' taken place!" -Roger Penrose

This phenomenon is widely debated by scientists, and as many scientists are materialists, they seek for alternative explanations. However, some scientists claim that this is an argument for dualism, and proves that a god has always existed. I argue that this is sufficient evidence not only for God existing, but evidence that He must have existed in the past, before human and animal consciousness. Should my opponent disagree with this, he must present evidence of other methods that cause collapse besides consciousness.

Solar Eclipses

(Many arguments for the existence of God tend to fall into a category of complexity, that things appear to be designed. They are always simple arguments, arguments that are quickly refuted by many atheists because natural processes can explain them. I will present such an argument, but I am quite confident that this particular issue will be unique in that my opponent will have a more difficult time to refute it.)

The moon appears to be designed.

The sun's diameter is 864,938 miles and it's distance from earth is 92960000 miles away.

The moon's diameer is 2,159 miles and it's distance from earth is 238900 miles away.

The sun is about 400 times bigger than the moon, and it is also about 400 times the distance away from the earth, making total solar eclipses possible. Solar eclipses are important because they are used in biblical prophesy.

If the moon wasn't created with supernatural reasons to determine certain events (like the solar eclipse after Jesus' death on the cross, predicted by Joel 2:31 "The Sun will be turned into darkness."), then what naturalistic processes explain how the moon came to be in just the perfect location for solar eclipses for humanity to see?


Yahweh exists because without Him, we would not exist (because consciousness is needed for collapse), we can trust His prophecy because it has always come true, and we have His creation to admire and to mark the months and sometimes prophetic events.

I thank my opponent for this debate and look forward to his rebuttals.

Debate Round No. 1


Thanks Pro. Let's dive right in

Argument from Prophecy

Pro says God told us the Jews would get Israel back, before it happened. So, God must exist, because no one else could have known. I feel this isn't a good argument.

There's various ways prophecy can be fulfilled without any divine intervention. Retrodiction, vagueness, inevitably, and self fulfilling prophecy. The prophecy described by Pro fits in the category of self fulfilling prophecy. It is written and the Jews strive to complete it. They want their land back and think God will help them. They clearly would've acted to fulfill it. A God is not needed to explain this.

Even if said argument is true, I don't see how it proves God. Why not take this as an argument for the existence of psychics? Why not think the author had psychic fits and mistook them for revelations from God? Just because we can't think of any other way for a prophecy to be fulfilled, doesn't mean it's God. It would be an argument from ignorance.

I can't find any evidence that shows the quote by Newton is real. His citation was from Al Hamishmar, a Jewish newspaper founded in the 40s []. This is hardly an authority. I ask Pro give the contemporary evidence from Newton, instead of a middle man source.

This argument fails.

Quantum Consciousness

Evidence has challenged the idea of consciousness collapsing a wave function. For example, physicist Max Tegmark showed the the brain is too large and too hot to be a quantum device []. Tegmark said

This conclusion disagrees with suggestions by Penrose and others that the brain acts as a quantum computer, and that quantum coherence is related to consciousness in a fundamental way.

So, what breaks the wave function? Michael Nauenberg in a paper saying a conscious collapse is a misunderstanding of QM said

..I think that it is not right to tell the public that a central role for conscious mind is integrated into modern atomic physics....

The only 'observer' which is essential in orthodox practical quantum theory is the inanimate apparatus which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic consequences. Of course this apparatus, in laboratory experiments, is chosen and adjusted by the experiments. In this sense the outcomes of experiments are indeed dependent on the mental process of the experimenters! But once the apparatus is in place, and functioning untouched, it is a matter of complete indifference - according to ordinary quantum mechanics - whether the experimenters stay around to watch, or delegate such 'observing' to computers []

Nauenberg in the paper also quotes other physicists who agree with this.

Richard P. Feynman (Nobel Prize, 1965):

Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not (Feynman et al., 1965).

Murray Gellmann (Nobel Prize, 1969):

The universe presumably couldn't care less whether human beings evolved on some obscure planet to study its history; it goes on obeying the quantum mechanical laws of physics irrespective of observation by physicists (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, 156).

John A. Wheeler:

Caution: "Consciousness" has nothing whatsover to do with the quantum process... (Wheeler, 1983).

I will add another quote

Victor Stenger :

The overwhelming weight of evidence, from seven decades of experimentation, shows not a hint of a violation of reductionist, local, discrete, nonsuperluminal, non-holistic relativity and quantum mechanics - with no fundamental involvement of human consciousness other than in our own subjective perception of whatever reality is out there. []

Even if Pro's argument is 100% accurate, there is still no reason to assume an ultimate consciousness. Because in quantum mechanics the phenomenon known as "retro-causaliy" is observed [][]. So, even if it's true that consciousness needs to break wave functions, it's true that an effect can happen before the cause. We could be the cause of the wave function collapse, but the effect of the broken wave function can happen before the cause.

The argument is refuted.

Solar Eclipses

Pro's argument has an unproven assumption. He assumes a solar eclipse outside Earth is so improbable, it must be divine. However, there's an amazing number of planets out there, no one knows the odds.

So what are the odds of the moon and sun appearing nearly the same size from Earth? No one knows. []

This argument is an argument from ignorance. Because Pro can't think of why the moon is this size, it must be supernatural. This is a logical fallacy.

While we have a unique type of solar eclipse, other planets do have solar eclipses []. If we had a different type of solar eclipse, religious books would use those instead. If we didn't have solar eclipses at all, then religious books wouldn't mention them at all. Ultimately, this is just a Brian's paradox, but not a good argument.

The argument is refuted.

Problem of Evil

The problem of evil is common and straightforward.

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.

3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.

4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.

5. Evil exists.

6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.

C. Therefore, God doesn't exist.


Temporal minds

This argument comes from DDO user Rational_Thinker9119 in one of his debates.

1. If God exists he is/ has a functioning atemporal mind

2. Mental processing is required for a functioning mind

3. Temporal duration is required for processing

4. A functioning atemporal mind cannot exist

C. God does not exist.

Premise one is accepted by the definition of God. Premise two is evident in the definition of a mind.

The element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought. []

A mind needs to have dynamic information. Otherwise it's just static. However, if static information are things such as books, which we wouldn't call a mind.

Mental processing requires changes to occur. This doesn't mean such a mind changes things about itself, just change from one thought to the next. In order for change to occur, time must be present. If we go from thought A to thought B, there needs to be a state of before thought B. However, we don't have that.

Let's assume we have change

A, goes to > B, goes to, > C, goes to > D

The problem is, this means we have time. We have a present (state D) a past (A,B,C) and possibly a future with state D or another state.

Thus, a functioning mind can't exist timelessly, therefore God doesn't exist.

Back to Pro.




I thank Con for his thoughtful rebuttals. However, my opponent seems to be trigger happy with claiming the “argument from ignorance” fallacy to attempt to undermine my ability to present rational arguments. The argument from ignorance definition is as follows: “It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false. Or vice versa.”



My opponent makes a fair request, but I sadly report that I cannot accomplish it. The evidence I gave for Newton's quote is not a direct source, but this does not prove that Newton did not make this claim. Many of Newton's writings are kept in a national library in Jerusalem. Some have been made public, but not all. The reason that they are kept in Jerusalem is because many of the prophecies concern Israel. But I argue the evidence I gave was sufficient; there is no reason for Con to dismiss this. There is no reason to assume my source misrepresented Newton's words.

I agree with Con in that should one person make a predictive claim that happens to come true, we should not assume that God exists. Other explanations could be given, such as the psychic phenomenon (although I argue this does not follow to be the most logical choice). However, because the prophets of antiquity are filled with many specific prophecies that have come true, we should notice that these are not isolated events. Also, these are not retrodictions as many skeptics like to claim, and they do so because of the detailed prophecies that became hauntingly accurate. More specifically, the book of Daniel, as claimed by many skeptics, is said to have been written after the events because of said accuracy.

The reason I gave only one instance of fulfilled prophecy was to not bombard my opponent with too many prophecies to rebut. I see him as accepting that the Bible does contain prophecies that did become fulfilled, he just does not agree with my assumption that these fulfillments result to the proof of the existence of God. He claims that I made an argument from ignorance, when in reality I made a positive claim that we do know these events have proven Scripture, and that the most logically sound explanation is that they prove the existence of God.

P) Many men claimed they had received a revelation from Yahweh, then made claims for a specific prediction for the future.

P) These predictions came true.

P) Because the claims they made about futuristic events were true, it is likely their claims of receiving testimony from Yahweh were also true.
      1. C) The words of Yahweh are reliable.
If my opponent wants to argue for another explanation, like psychic phenomena, he must explain how it is more logical to assume so.

Consciousness causes collapse.

Con: “The argument is refuted”.

All Con did was validate my claim- consciousness causes collapse. Even though we can create an apparatus to also cause the collapse, consciousness is still needed to create the apparatus. However, I must admit that he brought new information to the table that I was not aware of, and I applaud his strong case for the retro-causality phenomenon. Now, this does not prove that God couldn't have provided consciousness for the wave functions to collapse before humanity, only that it's theoretically possible that humans are the cause of the collapse. I contend that since we do not know with certainty just how long the effect can predate the cause, neither of us can make an adequate argument for either side. Instead, I will make an argument for what we do know.

We are only capable of causing wave functions to collapse with what we can observe, and as our universe is quite vast, one explanation is that God exists to supply the needed wave collapse for the entire universe. I ask my opponent to give an alternate explanation so we can then discuss which option is more likely to be true.

Solar eclipses.

I did not make an argument from ignorance. I need not involve other planets and moons to validate my claim. My opponent essentially argues that because we don't know how many other planets and moons there are, it must be just a coincidence that our moon is just the right size and distance away and that probably happens elsewhere. This is what actually fits the criteria for an argument from ignorance.

Con: “If we didn't have solar eclipses at all”

“What if” situations are irrelevant to the topic. The point is that we do have solar eclipses, and as I am on the position that Yahweh exists, my contention is that He created the moon with the purpose for solar eclipses.

Since my opponent used a fallacious rebuttal, my argument still stands. The moon appears to be designed, as we can see solar eclipses. I request that my opponent should give a better rebuttal than it just being a mere coincidence. I feel this is a fair request, as if God did design everything, it follows that we would see design in nature. So when an the arguments for "coincidence" or "merely seems designed but isn't" are used, they do not constitute for valid counterarguments, nor are they logically superior to the design argument.


The Problem of Parents

P) If Parents exist, they should be authoritative, wise, and loving.

P) If Parents are authoritative, they could set rules for children.

P) If Parents are wise, they know children will break those rules.

P) If Parents are loving, they will prevent their children from breaking those rules.

P) Rules are broken.

P) If broken rules exist and Parents exist, then either parents aren't setting rules, they pay no attention to their children, or they do not love their children.

C) Therefore, Parents do not exist.

I do not see this as any less ridiculous then the argument Con gave. Con may argue this is not a fair parallel to his argument, but I contend that it is. Parents will allow their children to make mistakes because we learn from our mistakes. My opponent seems to not understand that evil is explained away in the first few chapters in the Bible, and that his utopia of a world that he argues should exist if a God exists is what we Christians look forward to on the Last Day. The point is to earn that utopia by maintaining integrity in a world broken because of some of the bad choices humanity is allowed to make due to freewill.

Temporal Minds

My opponent again makes an argument from ignorance. He claims that since we know that temporal duration is required for processing, and since we don't know how an atemporal mind would function, then an atemporal mind cannot exist.

Con makes his assumptions based on the A theory of time. This argument fails under the B theory of time.

Con also assumes that God exists as a being outside of time. Nowhere in Scripture is this claim made. I argue that time has always existed, just like God.


My opponent is very quick to give alternative explanations to my arguments, but he does not go a step further to validate why his explanations are superior to mine. Should God exist, we would expect to see an ordered universe, and we should be expect that whenever a prophet speaks in Yahweh's name, the words will present themselves as truth. This is what we observe. I ask that my opponent makes predictions based on his worldview and then present observed cases that fit the worldview. I look forward to his challenging rebbuttals.
Debate Round No. 2


Argument from Prophecy

I was saying the quote seemed shady. Not that Newton never said it, but the source is from a newspaper. Not the most accurate. Just because Newton's work was under Jerusalem, doesn't mean the paper cited them. The quote is unverified.

Pro never objects to the prophecy being self fulfilling. He only objects to retrodiction with respect to the book of Daniel. However, this isn't the only way a prophecy can be fulfilled.

Next, Pro attacks my claim that his argument is one from ignorance. The problem is, he never showed why it's wrong or why we should think a God gave those revelations and fulfilled them. This is where the fallacy is. He has given no reason to prefer God. He tries to shift the burden of proof, by saying I need to prove psychic fits are more logical. However, this was just to show where the fallacy is! To show a God isn't the only explanation and Pro needs to show why God is preferred.

This is why your syllogism fails on premise one. Why should we think they were from a God?

I extend arguments.

Quantum Consciousness

Pro reasons that my rebuttal helps, instead of hurts his argument. I feel he missed the point. If the apparatus breaks the wave function, then where's the problem? Humanity has existed for thousands of years with no collapsed wave functions. Pro and I can live our entire lives without touching an apparatus and thus never breaking a wave function. Even when conscious beings evolved, they don't have to collapse a wave function. So, where's the problem at?

Pro dropped this argument and asks me to give an explanation for the wave function’s existence. I don't think Pro understands my point. I don't necessarily have to give an alternative explanation. I often do, because it shows the opposing side hasn't fulfilled their burden of proof. It shows the opposing side must offer more evidence to support their explanation. Here, Pro offered no evidence to support the idea that God created the wave functions. He just asserted it.

I feel my arguments still stand. If Pro wishes to accept my response, then his argument is no longer problematic. Pro’s new argument is nothing but a speculative assertion.

Solar Eclipses

Pro commits a straw man fallacy. My argument was not that since the odds are unknown, it must be a coincidence. I was saying, since the odds are unknown, then Pro’s argument hinges on an unproven assumption. This is nothing like the straw man my opponent went after. I extend my argument here.

Pro then ignores my other argument, claiming it's irrelevant. His objection doesn't touch my argument. If we had a different type of eclipse, or none at all, prophecy would remain mainly unchanged.

Pro’s argument is one from ignorance. He needs to prove God did design the moon. All he's doing asserting God created it because he can't think of any other way it came to be that size.

Problem of Evil

Pro parodies the problem of evil. His parody is a fallacious false analogy. Parents can't be all wise or all powerful . If parents were all wise, they can teach children to do right, without rules or punishment. Since parents have finite wisdom and power, rules will get broken. God, however is defined as all wise.

A God who is Tri-omni can teach humans without any evil. Pro says I don't understand that evil is explained in the first few chapters of the Bible. I'm aware that it tries, but I wasn't going to give a response to an argument that hasn't been made yet.

The argument is basically, Adam and Eve were given free will, they messed up. Therefore evil is not on God, but man.

First, this argument assumes free will exists. This is a highly controversial subject in philosophy, and needs to be proved first.

Second, does free will exist in heaven? I don't want to answer for Pro, but I think if the God being debated exists, there would be. Because, how would love coexist? The creation would be forced to love and praise, but that's not love. Is there evil in heaven? Obviously not. It wouldn't be heaven if there was. This means free will and no evil can coexist. The creation could live in this world where we can still accept or deny God, but have no evil.

Third, Even with free will we're still limited. For example, many things can be done to a building.

We can

1. Paint the building

2. Lean on the building

3. Punch the building

However we can't

4. Jump over the building

5. Turn the building into an invisible pink unicorn

6. Lift the building above my head

Does the inability to do 4-6 violate free will? Why couldn't God put evil in the same category as 4-6?

Fourth, were Adam and Eve perfect? If so, then they couldn't become imperfect. Since it would say what is perfect wasn't really perfect. Yet if A+E weren't created perfectly then God would basically be baking a cake and yelling at it for not tasting good. It would also mean God brought about an imperfection and thus responsible for evil.

The argument stands.

Temporal minds

Pro commits another straw man fallacy. This argument isn't claiming that we don't know how an atemporal mind works. Nothing in the argument suggests this. A mind must be successive, otherwise it's not a mind. It's like saying you can listen to music while it's muted.

How in the world is my argument assuming the A theory of time. It's an argument from the lack of time, not about the nature of time. Nonetheless, the Bible speaks in an A theory manor. I'll expand on that below.

Pro tries to get around the argument by claiming God and time can both exist. He says, nowhere in scripture does it say otherwise. God can only exist with time, if the B theory is true. Otherwise, God’s eternal nature creates an infinite regress. Maybe this is where Pro was going with his last objection.

First, the scriptures speak in an A theory manor.

Genesis 1:1- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Under the B theory, nothing begins to exist. Past, present, and future exist equally. The universe always existed, ontologically. Other verses (2 Timothy 1:9 and Titus 1:2) speak of before the "ages". Some translations even use the word time

Second, the Bible says God created everything.

John 1:3 - All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made

Clearly, this would include time. God not inventing time and claiming he created everything is like saying you created a chair while you sat on it.

This argument is unrefuted.

Back to Pro.



Opening Statement

I thank Con for his attempts to refute my arguments. I will now present my conclusions and shall look forward to his final remarks.

Concluding Rebuttals


Con argues that the Jews returning to Israel is self-fulfilling. He doesn't seem to understand the point of prophecy, because all prophecy is essentially self-fulfilling. The real point of prophecy is that once it has been stated, nothing will be able to prevent it from happening. Not even the Holocaust wiped out the Jewish race, and they were still able to restore the state of Israel afterwards. Con does not seem to fully grasp just how powerful an argument this is, as this feat by the Jews was hardly a simple task. And as my opponent has presented no valid reason for the quote from Newton to be rejected (as only resorting to an attack of integrity to the source supplying the quote), it becomes an increasingly amazing prophecy as it could have only been fulfilled in the 20th century, which it was.

Con argues that I have given no reason to prefer God for the fulfillments of prophecy without asserting which part of my syllogism (whether it be the premises or conclusion) was incorrect. My opponent extended his argument without refuting mine and only presented arguments that attacked the authority of the prophets of antiquity by demeaning them to have had psychic fits. Now my argument will stand and Con can only make a speculation against it without further discussion.

Consciousness Causes Collapse

Con argues that the apparatus is sufficient for collapsing the wave function. He fails to understand that both human consciousness and an apparatus collapse the wave function. An apparatus is created to supply another method of measuring the functions, but consciousness alone is sufficient, and also necessary in order to create said apparatus. He fallaciously tried to argue paradoxically that human consciousness is the cause that effected the wave collapses billions of years before they happened (He did present the possibility for retro-causality, which is itself only possible when humans alter the natural flow of quantum entangled particles by switching the pairs). I dropped the argument for the benefit of Con, and proceeded to point out that we have a vast universe with wave functions that won't collapse unless they are observed. If there is no observer, how is our vast universe “reality”? What consciousness is causing the collapse of wave particles beyond what we have observed in the universe? Since my opponent evaded answering this question, my argument will now stand and he can only speculate against it (or finally provide his rebuttal), even though he ironically asserted the opposite.

Solar Eclipses

I did not present a straw man fallacy. Firstly, I asserted that the moon is more likely to be designed, (never assuming was designed), then asked Con to provide an alternative explanation so we could discuss and debate which was more likely to be true. Con argued that “no one knows the odds” and pleaded that this was a sufficient rebuttal towards my claim, even though I have already demonstrated this was clearly an argument from ignorance. And because our sun and moon both do appear as the same size to us, this is not an unproven assumption. Should our universe be created, I would expect mathematical synchronizations such as this, which is what we see. Since Con evaded a rebuttal throughout his rounds, we are now unable to further my argument. My argument now stands where Con may finally give his alternative explanation, but it will only be a speculation without allowing me to refute it.

Problem of Evil

Con argues I used a false analogy, when Scripture emphatically compares God as a parent, numerously calling him “Father.” If Con had a parent that prevented him from doing anything wrong, he would immediately develop a strong dislike towards his parents. An all wise God allows freewill; an unloving God would create robots that must love Him. But that is not love.

My opponent asserts free will is highly debated in philosophy, then fails to provide a reference proving so. As we live in a society with laws, asserting free will is demonstrably justified, whereas anyone denying freewill has the burden of proof. But to appease his request: quantum mechanics disproves determinism and proves free will. It was only because of classical mechanics that people falsely assumed determinism.

My opponent asserts there is no evil in heaven. “There was war in heaven” (Revelation 12:7). Obviously freewill exists in heaven, which refutes his unwarranted assertion. Angels did leave heaven, as they were not created as robots to serve a master without choosing to do so.

My opponent again makes a paradoxical argument with a freewill analogy. If sin was something that we were physically unable to do, that is not freewill. A blind man is not free to see whatever he pleases, as he may wish to see many things but will never be able to do so. This unwarranted assertion is disproved.

My opponent argues that if Adam and Eve were created perfectly, then the blame is on God. First, it is not said that they were created perfectly, rather, when created God said “very good.” Good is not perfect. Secondly, my opponent brings up the term perfect, without defining what his view of it is, as everyone sees it differently. I would say a being with freewill is perfect, as this is vastly superior to a god who wouldn't be able to create someone with freewill. Humans can create robots, but we cannot create something and allow it to make it's own choices. The fact that we do have freewill is a strong argument for God.

Temporal Minds.

I did not present a straw man fallacy. My opponent has never experienced anything atemporal. He is not qualified to speculate that an atemporal mind could not exist. Also, atemporal is defined as: “not limited [to] or affected by time”, but it is not a lack of time. My opponent used the fallacy of equivocation to make an argument. It fails.

However, as previously argued, the God of the bible is never described as being outside of time.

From eternity to eternity I am God.” (Isaiah 43:13) This blatantly identifies Him as in time, and the point is that He is eternal, not necessarily outside of time.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Again, this directly puts God inside time, only claiming that He made material things, not claiming that God created time also.

The Bible is written from a human perception, so I would expect it to be perceived through an A theory of time. We know that the sun doesn't move, yet we still say it “rises” and “sets” in relation to our perception, so I would not expect the Bible to be emphatically making a statement for A theory of time.

Concluding Statement

I would like to thank Con for this engaging debate. However, as my opponent submitted to evasive tactics throughout the debate, we were unable to progress to a more in-depth discussion. Nevertheless, I expect some thoughtful conclusions. Good luck, Con.

Debate Round No. 3



Pro says all prophecy is basically self fulfilling. However, he says it couldn't have been stopped. I don't see how this refutes the naturalistic explanation, unless he's saying the event was too improbable. However, he has given no reason to think it was so. The entire world was practically against Hitler, even if the Jewish race was wiped out, Jewish converts would strive to take Israel. For the second time, I'm not trying to invalidate the source of Newton, I just wanted a reliable accurate validation of it. This has not been done, all I got was Pro saying I haven't shown the quote to be false.

My claim of the fallacy stands. Pro said I never showed where his argument was wrong. However, I did. Pro is saying because they claimed it was from God, it must be. As I've been saying throughout the debate, this is still compatible with psychic fits, in fact one would expect them to claim it was God because they wouldn't know any better. Pro never showed God was preferred.

Ultimately, Pro misunderstand my objections and ignores others. The argument is refuted.

Wave functions

Pro says human consciousness alone can break the wave function. In order to say this, Pro must ignore almost all of my round 2. Pro never defended this claim in round 2, he just tried to claim the apparatus validates the claim. So, his claim is refuted and has been from round 2.
I'm sorry if I didn't make my answer clear in the last round. There's no need for every wave function in the universe to be collapsed. Only the things we observed, thus there is no problem.
Pro makes already refuted claims, his argument doesn't show an ultimate consciousnesses exists, thus the argument is refuted.


His entire response here is based on a straw man. I'm not trying to come up with another explanation, nor trying to prove the moon wasn't designed. All I'm doing is showing Pro"s argument isn't sufficient evidence. What Pro misunderstands is what I'm saying by "no one knows the odds". This is not an alternative explanation, or claiming the moon wasn't designed. This is an attack on the assumption that it's too improbable for the said placement to exist. Since, we don't know, I'm saying just that. Claiming it's God is to commit a fallacy.

I've been stressing this point since the start, but Pro continues to straw man to the end. There was nothing but straw men from Pro here. The argument is refuted.

Problem of Evil
Pro ignores my response to his analogy. It's irrelevant that a name for God is father. He then goes onto restate the free will defense.

Pro says since we live in a society with laws, it's best to assume free will until proven otherwise. When does society determine what's philosophically true? If the entire world was a theocracy, it wouldn't mean we should assume God"s existence until shown otherwise.

He then gives a link about quantum mechanics and free will. However, quantum mechanics only proves the free will of particles. It doesn't show humans have conscious choice over their actions. Nor does the source show this. The source only talked about scientific determinism. The view that all physical things can be predicted. Even if quantum mechanics affected our actions, this doesn't mean we have control over them. If I get another cup of coke because an atom randomly moved from one point to the other, this doesn't mean I had a choice in the matter. The random quantum effects would cause my actions, this isn't free will, but the exact opposite. Pro must show we are in control of our actions. This hasn't been done, thus the base of his rebuttal have not been built. The free will defense is unproven, now let's go to my arguments claiming it fails.

Pro says there was evil under heaven. However, it's irrelevant of what was in heaven before humans. All that matters is how heaven is now. Indeed in round 2 Pro said

...and that his utopia of a world that he argues should exist if a God exists is what we Christians look forward to on the Last Day.

Pro says there is no evil in heaven today and he said free will exists there. This means Pro agrees, free will and no evil can coexist. Pro ignores this point, instead he committed a red herring fallacy talking about how there was war in heaven. I'm not sure Pro understood this argument, because Pro said

Obviously freewill exists in heaven, which refutes his unwarranted assertion.

However, this agrees with my supposed "assertion". How is Pro refuting it by agreeing with it?
Pro ignores my other argument for the compatibility of free will and no evil. He says you can't have free will without the ability to commit evil. However, this ignores my argument against this. We are still restricted, Pro said himself a blind man isn't free to see, but still free. Restriction and free will are compatible. This also undermines God"s omnipotence.

Pro talks about my A+E paradox. However, his first objection was anticipated and already answered in my last round. He asks me about the definition of perfect. Perfect is free from faults. We can in fact forget the word perfect. Either they were made with, or without fault. If with, then God created a fault, if without, then we would still be without faults. The objection is unrefuted.
Pro was full of evasion and misunderstanding in this section. The base is unproven and no evil can exist with free will. This argument stands strong.

Temporal minds

The argument isn"t about us not experiencing atemporal things. Either a mind is successive or not. Both are problematic for Pro. This is the law of excluded middle. Pro says atemporal doesn"t mean a lack of time. However, Pro"s definition doesn"t disagree with me. Something timeless isn"t affected or limited to time. This doesn"t mean it is, or can be in time. The very word "atemporal" means "not time" (a-not, tempus-time)[]. For example, something spaceless, isn"t limited or affected by space, but this doesn"t mean it can be in space.
The claim of equivocation is groundless.

Pro straw mans my argument from Gen 1:1. I was using it to show the Bible accepts a beginning of the universe, but this can only happen with the A theory of time. Not the B theory. It wasn"t an argument from the beginning of time. Pro also ignores 2 Timothy 1:9 and Titus 1:2 which speak of beginning of the ages, some even translate it to "beginning of time".

Pro also ignores my strongest argument. The argument from John 1:3.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made

Obviously, this means time was made too.

The argument stands.

Pro never tries to address the claim of self fulfilling prophecy until his last round. Even then, he didn"t refute it. He never proved God did reveal the revelations. His only argument was that it must be because they claimed it to be. This doesn"t show why we should prefer God. I refuted the claim of quantum consciousness and even if it was true, we can still have a possible explanation. Pro dropped this argument and said there must be a break for the entire universe, but this means wouldn"t be problematic. Pro never responded to that, he just repeated his arguments, ignoring my refutations. Pro straw manned my objections with the solar eclipse argument. He thought I was using the unknowable odds as an alternative explanation, but that wasn"t so. He also never responded to the claim that this argument is one from ignorance. The problem of evil is still standing. Pro argued from free will, but never proved we have it. He ignored my objections to free will being incompatible with no evil. The Temporal minds argument still stands, Pro"s God must be outside of time, but this means he can"t be a mind. Pro tried to make God compatible with time, but the attempts failed. My arguments stands



For an equal number of rounds, nothing will be posted here, as agreed.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Poetaster 3 years ago
And what a bizarrely specific parallel this is:

It seems the argument is increasing in its philosophical stature and prevalence.
Posted by Poetaster 3 years ago
Well, I think it might be to the proponent's advantage to make the opponent stand at military attention on stage and in the beam of a blinding, searing spotlight while masturbating and attempting to verbally refute the argument in an otherwise silent, but sold-out, theater-in-the-round.
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
I wonder if the proponent of the Masturbalogical argument will provide the material to masturbate to.
Posted by Poetaster 3 years ago
Sahara, your argument requires your debate opponent to masturbate? I'm curious to know what the open rebuttal might look like:

"My opponent challenges me to masturbate on the spot to demonstrate her point, but I have already masturbated several times in this very debate without conceding. Thus, my defense still stands."

Oh my.
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago

I can't tell if your comment is serious, but many times religious people will feel guilty afterwards because Christianity is so sexually repressive. It doesn't prove there is a god, it's a purely psychological phenomena within yourself because you believe in Christianity.

I highly doubt you've surveyed any atheists on this subject. Do you have any proof that atheists will necessarily feel the same guilt?
Posted by sahara.eveline 3 years ago
God is real and God is God. Try masturbating for instance. You can't tell me you've never felt guilty afterwards. This is because the spirit of God effects us all, whether you accept Him or not.
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Typical definition of evil. As in pain, suffering, ect.
Posted by GarthVader 3 years ago
Magic - Your argument that a creator doesn't exist because evil exists doesn't have merit unless you can define what exactly evil is. Can you define what evil is so that we can determine whether your argument holds merit, please?
Posted by Orangatang 3 years ago
Great structured debate and arguments from both Pro and Con, I enjoy the intellectual rebuttals of both.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Orangatang 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: In general, the debate was lacking, the origins of the universe where not discussed, and basic arguments/responses from both Pro and Con could have been better. Pro did indeed argue from ignorance, just because we do not know how something came to be (solar eclipses) does not mean God did it. The argument from design may show that God is more likely to exist, however that is not the resolution of the debate, Con did not prove that God exists nor show that any alternatives are less likely. Pro could have showed that are universe is designed poorly in many different ways, but his point of showing the ignorance fallacy of Pro suffices. Con's arguments did not seem to be thoroughly refuted, Con's rebuttals and arguments were generally more sound and rational.
Vote Placed by Nataliella 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides had their strengths and weaknesses. Sources go to Con for using more sites from colleges, while Pro used sources mostly from Wikipedia.