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

God Probably Does Not Exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/29/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 947 times Debate No: 41407
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)




A maximally great, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God (with a capital "G") is the one we will be discussing about.

First round for acceptance only.


I accept your challenge. Alright, so. How was the Earth created? Tell me. The Big Bang Theory? That's just a theory. God is real. He created out world. How is the Earth so perfect? It has water, soil, and other things to grow food and get resources from. How could the Big Bang Theory do all that! What about heaven? Heaven wasn't just something made up. It's obviously real. How do you explain Jesus?
Debate Round No. 1


My opponent didn't just accept the debate, but asked questions and argued. I urge a conduct deduction for this...

Is The Big Bang Just A Theory?

We know The Big Bang happened because of the empirical evidence which supports it. For instance, we know that the universe is expanding due to the red-shifting of the galaxies[1]. This is a prediction of The Big Bang which was confirmed. Another prediction is that The Big Bang would have left an imprint of radiation, well we found it. The Cosmic Microwave Background confirms The Big Bang theory[2].

Was Did The Earth Get Here?

Gravity is what formed the Earth. If you have this gravitational force pulling on matter so it all gets forced towards the center; you get Earth[3]. Once Abiogenesis[4] occurs, then you can get living things from non-living things; which trace back to The Big Bang.


If it is real by some slim chance, then we have no good evidence for it.


Jesus probably existed. That doesn't mean he was supernatural.

The Problem Of Evil

P1: If God exists, Gratuitous suffering does not exist
P2: Gratuitous suffering exists
C: Therefore, God does not exist.

Defense Of P1

As Philosopher Ryan Stringer notes:

"P1 is a necessary truth based on the properties of God. As a morally perfect being, God must have a morally sufficient reason to permit or create evil; for this is part of what it means to be morally perfect. And since 'gratuitous evil' simply refers to evil that God, if he existed, would have no morally sufficient reason to permit or create, he will not permit or create it if he exists. Thus, God's existence entails the nonexistence of gratuitous evil."
- Ryan Stringer[5]

Most theists are willing to grant P1, and it is relatively uncontroversial. As Christian philosopher Daniel Howard-Snyder states:

"[T]he idea that God may well permit gratuitous evil is absurd. After all, if God can get what He wants without permitting some particular horror (or anything comparably bad), why on earth would He permit it?" -
Daniel Howard-Snyder

A perfectly good being would only allow suffering, or evil, if it was necessary for some greater good. If a being allowed suffering or evil for no good reason, then this is clearly a lesser being than one who would make sure there was a reason, and that there was a good entailed by the evil in question. Thus, If God exists, gratuitous suffering does not exist.

Defense Of P2

P1: If it is the case that all occurrences of apparently gratuitous suffering are really necessary for some greater good, then we should not prevent apparently gratuitous suffering

P2: We should prevent apparently gratuitous suffering

C: Therefore, it is not the case that all occurrences of apparently gratuitous suffering are really necessary for some greater good

--- Defense of P1

If God exists, then all of the suffering that appears gratuitous is really necessary for some greater good without exception. Tampering with any apparently gratuitous suffering would cancel out the greater good that is necessarily entailed by it. Thus, one ought not do it (more goodness at the end of the day is better then less goodness at the end of the day).

--- Defense of P2

Certainly, if a little girl is being brutally raped and possibly may die, we ought to prevent it. Nobody in their right mind who stumbled across this situation would let it continue due to the fact that if they didn't let it continue, they would be cancelling out some greater good that is necessarily entailed by the apparently gratuitous suffering.

“The fact that a Christian would save the child if he could implies that Christians don't really believe that an apparently needless death [or suffering] serves any greater good.” - Paul Doland[7]

The two premises of the argument seem plausible enough to affirm that at least some cases of apparently gratuitous suffering are actually gratuitous, even if other cases of apparently gratuitous suffering really do entail some greater good in the long run.

I think we have a convincing argument for the non-existence of God based off of premises that are more plausibly true than there negation. Thus, God does not exist.

Argument From Humans

P1: If God exists, humans do not exist

P2: Humans exist

C: Therefore, God does not exist

Defense of P1

P2, obviously, is not controversial; the issue surrounds P1. Well, God is defined as a maximally great being. In other words, this is the greatest conceivable being. Some actions from a being are consistent with this definition, some are not. I am going to show that if God exists, this entails and action by him which contradicts his definition. Thus, God is incoherent and illogical.

Take this axiom:

A: If Being A does action X at time T, then at time T, Being A did not do something else besides action X at time T, instead of action X at time T.

The above is a self-evident truth. If I ate a meal yesterday at 5:00am, then it follows necessarily that at 5:00am yesterday, I wasn't doing something else besides eating a meal at 5:00am, instead of eating a meal at 5:00am.

What does all this mean? Well, if God created us at time T, then at time T, he did not create beings greater than humans besides humans, instead of humans at time T. However, that is inconsistent with the idea of the greatest conceivable being. I can can conceive a greater being than one who created humans at time T; one that created a greater species than humans instead of us at time T. Therefore, if God exists, humans don't exist.

This argument shows that if humans exist, then God doesn't. The problem is; we clearly exist. I'll end this section with a quote from Philosopher Quentin Smith:

"I can't believe that a perfect being would create such things as humans. The main reason that God doesn't exist, is that humans exist. That makes it self-evident that God does not exist." - Quentin Smith[8]

The Divine Hiddenness Argument

P1: If God exists, then all humans (who are open minded, open hearted, and who's cognitive faculties are functioning) who try to experience God, experience God.

P2: Not all humans (who are open minded, open hearted, and who's cognitive faculties are functioning) who try to experience God, experience God

C: Therefore, God does not exist

Defense of P1

This cashes out from the definition of God. If he is all loving, then he would want all capable humans who try to engage in a relationship with him to succeed. As Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig says:

"If God exists then he would surely make a way for all persons to know him, and come to relationship with him... For a person with an open mind and an open heart, who's cognitive faculties are functioning properly will come to belief in God" - William Lane Craig[9]

Defense Of P2

Some of the greatest logicians were Atheists (Bertrand Russell[10]), so nobody can reasonably say that all Atheists don't have working cognitive faculties. Most (if not all) Atheists, I am sure, have tried to speak to God with an open mind and heart but with no results. Many Jews reported feeling abandoned by God during the time they needed him the most[11].

Divine Hiddenness strongly disconfirms Theism.


I provided 3 arguments in favor of the resolution. The ball is in Con's court now...

[6] Howard-Snyder, Daniel, and Frances Howard-Snyder. 1999. "Is Theism Compatible with Gratuitous Evil?" American Philosophical Quarterly 36: 115-29


My opponent did answer my questions. But, he's missing some key elements...

The Big Bang THEORY:

There are many problems with this theory. And the theory itself still does not answer many important questions - Such as where did all the matter in the universe come from?

If all the matter in the universe was compressed into a small dot, what caused this to happen? Where did gravity come from that held it together?

If this "dot" spun rapidly until it exploded., then where did the energy come from to start the spinning?

Also, in an environment without friction you would have this spinning dot going so fast it would then explode. If this happened, then all of the particles and matter being expelled from this "spinning dot" would all have to spin in the same direction as the dot they exploded from.

This is a known law of science, which those who believe in Evolution cannot do away with. It is known as the Conservation of angular momentum.

This matter which is said to have created the planets would all need to spin in the same direction as the object it came from.

So therefore, all of the planets should be spinning in the same direction.

However two of them are not. Venus and Uranus spin backwards.

This proves the big bang theory is not true. Therefore, who created all the planets? Nothing could've, but god.


Proof of Heaven: A Doctor’s Experience With the Afterlife

This doctor named Dr. Eben Alexander, has apparently, had experience with the "Afterlife." Take a look at his story:


Proof that heaven is real? Possibly. How will you explain that?

You are right about that, but if he was god's son..... god is supernatural so wouldn't he be as well?

You have great reasons, but I have better.

The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

existence of GodThe Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4

Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:

It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.

proof of GodWater is a universal solvent. This property of water means that various chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.5

Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.

Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.

Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.

Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.

The Earth is perfect. How? God.

Does God exist? The universe had a start - what caused it?

Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.

Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen."9

Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."10

The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.

The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.

existence of GodAll instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this: 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human cell!!

Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full instruction manual.13

existence of GodWhy is this so amazing? One has to did this information program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals. These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way exactly how the person's body should develop.

Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it.

Explain all this. Your turn.

Debate Round No. 2



My opponent just copy and pasted stuff from websites and asks me to explain it... that is hardly a sufficient debate round. Also, Con's argument at best support some kind of intelligent designer, or some other type of God; not necessarily the God specifically defined in this debate. Therefore, even if all of Con's arguments succeed, if my arguments from the last round remain standing; Con loses. He has yet to touch on my arguments as of yet. I will respond to my opponent's arguments, but not because I have to.

The Big Bang And a Cause

Con's source is to a website making page, not a credible scientific website. Therefore, we can disregard my opponent's quote. I actually had sources from NASA to support The Big Bang; which is way more credible than anything my opponent brought to the table. Also, matter bumps into eachother and can change direction of any spin, plus the total energy of the universe is zero (whether closed or flat) [1][2]. This is because all the positive energy in the universe is balanced out perfectly by negative energy. Thus, if we have zero energy and no universe; the net energy never changes even with the production of the universe. Therefore, the law of conservation of energy is never violation by this type of event.

"[T]he universe could have originated spontaneously out of 'nothing'. This sounds like a very strange proposition for a physicist to make because we know that there are conservation laws... energy is conserved. So, usually, this means that if you have nothing you cannot have something because that takes energy. However, it turns out that if you have a closed universe where the space closes in on itself...the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So, the energy of a closed universe is always zero, and then nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created." - Professor of Physics, Alexander Vilenkin[3]

My opponent talks about a cause of the universe. However, all causes we know of come before their effects in time. Why think there was a cause of the universe, if the start of the universe was also the start of time itself? Also, there are theories in which no cause is needed, like Alexander Vilenkin's quantum tunnelling model:

"As a result of the tunnelling event, a finite-sized universe, filled with a false vacuum, pops out of nowhere ("nucleates") and immediately starts to inflate...What could have caused the tunnelling? Remarkably, the answer is that no cause is required." - Professor of Physics, Alexander Vilenkin[4]

The Earth

The Earth is not perfect. It is filled with disease, hurricanes that destroy, tsunamis, tornadoes, a natural law of "eat or be eaten" in the wild... I could go on, but Earth is far from perfect. Also, why is Earth so right for life? The answer is; pure chance. There is Billions of planets in our galaxy alone, and billions of galaxies in the known universe. The odds that at least one would be right for life is extremely high. If there was only one planet, then that would be evidence of intelligent design.


If Jesus was God's son, then Jesus would be supernatural. Why think Jesus is God's son though?


There are many explanations for Near Death Experiences that don't involve the supernatural[5]


"Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it." - Con

Con is confusing instruction with a function. Just because something carries out a complex function, that implies intelligence none. Natural Selection explains this just fine.


Con's arguments don't actually support the God as I specifically defined. Also, ALL of my arguments from my first round were left without answer. Thus, they stand; God probably does not exist.


[3] You-Tube[watch?v=_XYGo3wjdoM]
[4] Alexander Vilenkin: "Many worlds in one: The search for other universes" (P. 181)


Not only does my opponent deny that the Earth isn't perfect...... he says Jesus isn't God's son..... God is real, he just doesn't get it.
Debate Round No. 3


I deny that the Earth is perfect, not that the Earth isn't perfect. I'm a naturalist so of course I don't believe Jesus was supernatural. Con says God is real, but I provided many arguments against that notion in my first round that didn't get any attention. Vote Pro.


Uh huh. Vote Con if you think God is real. Which he IS. Evidence is in front of you.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by KingDebater 4 years ago
I love the argument from humans.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
The problem is that free-will only requires the ability to chose between A and B. A could be "good 1", and B could be "good 2". We don't need the ability to do evil to have free-will!
Posted by megan121812 4 years ago
Here is an interesting argument on why God is not the parent of evils:

Humans are rational beings. In order to be rational, humans must have free will. This means they must be able to choose between good or evil. Humans can therefore act badly or well. God is not the parent of evils.

This doesn't help anything with natural disasters, but I just thought that it would be interesting for people to read and to think about.

From st Augustine of Hippo
Posted by safisweetkeyz 4 years ago
Con's position was poorly argued. He failed to interact with any of Pro's arguments, instead presupposing the "obviousness" of God's existence.

1 Peter 3:15 commands us to "Alaways be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." Keep at it Gabe1e! There are great introductory resources to learn how to articulate and defend your faith.

You might be familiar with them, nonetheless I reccomend the work of John Lennox, Ravi Zacharias, and (as Rational_Thinker9119 knows, lol) William Lane Craig as a way to begin studying apologetics. I believe we have a responsibility to demonstrate the truth of Christianity in the marketplace of ideas, and learning a more appropriate method of argumentation will prove more effective.

All the best!
Posted by Gabe1e 4 years ago
Vote me. Believe in god!
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
*How Did The Earth Get Here?

I said "Was" in the debate for some reason instead of "How".
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 4 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 Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: No competition here. I wish I could give 3 conduct points to Pro. Con uses round 1 for arguments, copies and pastes arguments, and essentially forfeits two rounds. All are worthy of a conduct loss. Con argues against the big bang but that's irrelevant to God. Pro comes back with powerful evidence of the big bang. Con dismissed it and asked where it came from. Pro showed since the universe's total energy is zero, there is no problem with an uncaused physical cause. No response by con. Pro showed how the earth got here and con dropped this point for the earths perfection. Pro pointed out it's not perfect to which con said he denied it was perfect. No response from con there. Pro refuted cons contention from NDEs and his Jesus argument was incoherent. Con ignored pro's three arguments for atheism and Pro showed how cons argument from DNA information was not a valid. Creation was not shown to be a necessary aspect of information. Clear win for Pro.
Vote Placed by Mikal 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Sweet Jesus(No Pun Intended), this was a pure beat down from pro. I have seem some of pros debates, where he was shifty in his arguments, but this time he gave Con a proper thrashing. Pro right off the start addresses the problem of evil and the argument for humans. He even goes on to state there is no substantial evidence for heaven. Con argues heaven does exist by posting an article of someone having an out of body experience or near death experience (failure). This is not empirical evidence. The next few of Cons arguments he went on a Copy and paste spree(points to pro fo this). Con also drops the argument from evil and humans. Pro refutes all of his arguments in the next round and Con just says screw it and gives up. This is as close to a concession as it gets. con just gives up and realizes pro beat the breaks off of him and from there the debate is over. Pro wins by a landslide
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 4 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 Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con copied and pasted reasons from other sites, as I have seen those reasons before. Whole debate goes to PRO for violating the rules. Still believe in God, though.
Vote Placed by supershamu 4 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 Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Reasons for voting decision: I really wish that Con stuck with the format of the debate and he bailed early in continuing the rebuttals. I gave Pro the point for that and also for his sources. He had more and also more reliable ones. I did notice that Pro had a spelling problem or two so I gave that point to Con. But to the bread and butter of proving that God probably does not exist, I think that Con did a better job of giving pertinent facts and even very scientific ones. They definitely showed that God probably does exist and Pro did not do a lot to refute them other than say that earth isn't perfect. Con did not do much to refute Pro either but Pro's initial argument on God's nature was a bit too assumptive and wasn't evidence supported like Con's was. It was an interesting debate but Con really needs to work on conduct for future debates