The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

God doe not exist.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
theteamnoob has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/22/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 279 times Debate No: 94011
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)




On a logical level. The reasoning by which god must exist is the same reason that allows me to claim unicorns exist.
1. It is tasked with you, (against) to show me that there are unicorns. Until you find a unicorn I won't believe you. They can exist beyond the realm of existence because they are magical. Therefore unicorns exist.
2. There are books that are really old which talk about unicorns existing.
3. There is no evidence to suggest unicorns don't exist.

4. Ahh I give up. Just debate me about god - with a compelling argument. I do actually want to believe in God because it made me happier as a child. I just can't because God's existence cannot be proved and relies on blind faith. Disprove the arguments and maybe give some of your own. Who knows? Maybe you might help someone find faith.


I am making 2 claims. 1 that God exists. 2 that Christianity is the correct religion. I have provided 1 argument for each.


P1) Everything that Begins to exist has a cause.
P2) The Universe began to exist.
C1) Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

P1 is rooted in the law of Cause and Effect. For every effect, there must be a cause. P2 is proven by the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem, which states that any universe which has been, on average, expanding throughout its history must have a beginning [1]. The universe is expanding [2]. Thus it began to exist. Thus there is a cause of the universe. It must be timeless and immaterial since both time and material arose with the universe [3]. It must be extremely powerful, if not omnipotent, since it caused a universe with no preexisting material. It must be a free agent since there were no preexisting conditions to determine how it acted. Since it is free, it must have the capacity to be personal. These attributes are the very definition of God.

Jesus of Nazareth

There are certain historical facts that support the proposition that Jesus was resurrected. These facts are:

1. After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea.

Some reasons to accept this as fact include that there is no alternative burial story. If this was a myth, there ought to be some record of what actually happened. Reason 2 is that Joseph of Arimathea is not likely to be a Christian invention. Christians were angry at the Jewish leadership for their role in the Jesus" death [4]. Joseph of Arimathea was part of the Sanhedrin, so it is unlikely that Christians would invent him [5].

2. After his crucifixion, his tomb was found empty by some of his women followers.

One reason to accept it as fact is that women found his grave. Women"s testimony was discounted in first Century Palestine [6]. If the writers of the Gospels were lying, they surely would have tried to make their story more reliable by sending men to "discover" the empty tomb. Furthermore, the Jewish Leaders first response to the claim that Jesus was resurrected was to claim that the disciples had stolen the body, not to point out an occupied tomb and laugh away the disciples [7]. Thus we have evidence that the tomb was empty.

3. People experienced appearances by Jesus after his crucifixion.

We have reason to believe that this is true. There are only 3 options. These people were lying, hallucinating, or they actually saw Jesus. Lying fails to explain why 10 of the disciples were martyred for their Faith. People often die for lies that they believe to be truth, but the disciples would have known if they were lying.
The problem with hallucination is that it fails to account for the physical experiences described in these accounts. After his crucifixion, he had supposedly eaten with his disciples [8]. The problem it encounters is that the disciples would have known that it was just a hallucination because they would have realized that they were still hungry because they had not actually eaten. There is a greater underlying problem though: that of simultaneous hallucination. It is immensely improbable that all of the disciples had the exact same hallucination at the exact same time. Thus the most probable explanation is that they actually saw Jesus alive after his crucifixion.

4. The disciples believed that Jesus was alive despite much evidence that he was not.

(1) their leader was crucified, and the Jews had no belief in a dying messiah. (2) according to Jewish law, Jesus' crucifixion showed that he was a heretic. Not only was their leader gone, but his death showed that the Sanhedrin had been right. Yet, the disciples were still willing to die for their belief in the Resurrection.

What is the best explanation for these facts? The Christian can readily answer: "Jesus rose from the dead." C.B. McCullagh provides 6 tests that historians use to determine the best explanation for historical facts, which the Christian's answer passes [9]:

1. Great explanatory scope. Explains why Jesus' tomb was empty, why the disciples saw
after death appearances of Jesus and why Christianity grew as fast as it did.
2. Great explanatory power. Explains why Jesus' body was gone, why people saw him
alive despite seeing him crucified.
3. It is plausible. Given Jesus' unparalleled life, it is perfectly possible that divine resurrection happened.
4. It is not ad hoc or contrived. The only assumption that one needs to make is that God exists, which I have already demonstrated.
5. It is in accordance with accepted beliefs. The belief that God raised Jesus from the dead does not run afoul with the belief that people don't naturally rise from the dead.
6. It far exceeds other explanations in meeting conditions 1-5. Hypotheses like the hallucination and conspiracy hypotheses have been broadly rejected or simply can't provide an explanation as well as the claim that Jesus rose from the dead.

All sources in comments.
Debate Round No. 1


You should not really be including "Christianity is the correct religion" in this argument. It isn't part of the debate and it is a whole debate on it's own. However, I am willing to bite - just know it is considered bad practice in a debate to add points to the original hypothesis. Christianity is not the bible therefore you don't need to prove the religion is valid, only the book.

Your first point is correct as it is a rule of epistemology. However the next two points cannot be known with current science. The Vilekin Theorem shows that the expansion of the universe must have had a point in time from which it originated, which is widely accepted to be the big bang.
However, the big bang claims to show how matter and space essentially began. It does not show the origin of energy. The start of the big bang assumes an infinitely small singularity that "evolved" into the universe it does not assume the creation of the universe at all because, science still just does not know how or if the universe began.

I will continue for the sake of argument that the universe has a creation based beginning that therefore requires a causation. The laws the universe follow cannot be known to exists outside the universe because we cannot observe outside the universe. This statement also has an equal opposite as the fact is, if you cannot observe what lies beyond the universe you cannot know what laws apply. This means that there could be time, material and a whole other universe outside of this one but, we just cannot know because it cannot be observed.

The largest fundamental flaw in all written history is that it is written. If I wrote a book now claiming to know God and it became one of the sole things that survived this civilization - would there be a religion seven thousand years later? Therefore any good historian will rely on multiple writings and archaeological evidence to back up any claim.

The entire argument by which you debate Christianity is invalid. You have only used the bible as source of your evidence. None of the online sources were more than just interpretations of the bible. Which would then bring me back to the book of unicorns. Maybe the paper at the bottom (your source 9)may have some good proof but I can't find any online version of it, which is a shame because it sounds like it would be a decent argument for the integrity of the bible.

But to me, without any archaeological claim or any other account the bible is just a book of legends whereby, someone kept saying a story until they decided to write it down. . You cannot claim historical fact from the bible alone as it historical accuracy is still being debated due to it's lack of archaeological evidence and dated accounts.


I apologize to my opponent. I must forfeit this round. Some good friends of mine are in the hospital after a bad car wreck and I wont have time to post. Voters, vote for my opponent.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 21MolonLabe 3 months ago
Thanks. Perhaps we can rematch one day
Posted by theteamnoob 3 months ago

I wish you all the best and hope your friends make a full recovery.
Posted by Faithisbad 3 months ago
Can anything be proved by a theorm? I guess it can with a degree of certainty depending on how many experiments one does.
Posted by theteamnoob 3 months ago
I apologies for the mispelling of "does" in the title. It is really bugging me. Anyway I looked at all pros sources that I could.
And for the information on the big bang here is my source
I used this website a lot when I studied physics because of it's simple explanations. It sources its information from a variety of places:
Posted by 21MolonLabe 3 months ago

Sounds good.
Posted by 21MolonLabe 3 months ago

If he should not have to respond to my argument that Christianity is the right religion, then I too ought to be able to ignore his point that old books say unicorns exist, since this is a common type of argument against the Bible.
Posted by vi_spex 3 months ago
religion is unknown, not true
Posted by theteamnoob 3 months ago
I am looking at your sources, I will reply in a few hours.
Posted by Faithisbad 3 months ago
The argument that Christianity is the true religion is not relevant to the the proposition that God does not exist. The instigator should not be expected to answer this. If there is a God then there is a debate on whether or not we can in any sense have a relationship with it is a separate debate.
Posted by Faithisbad 3 months ago
The problem is that if everything must be pre-existed by something God must also be pre-existed by something even greater and this can never be resolved into a single source.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.