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

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
creationtruth has forfeited round #2.
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: 4/27/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 652 times Debate No: 102245
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)




The proposition is that God exists. Pro will be defending the proposition that God exists, while Con will be arguing that Pro has not established that God exists.

Pro can define the God they want to defend, within reason. An example of a reasonable definition of God is "an omnipotent, all knowing, perfectly good being." An example of an unreasonable definition of God would be "love" or "the universe." The point of this requirement is to allow Pro some freedom to define what they believe in or want to defend, while preventing people from cheating by using a definition that no one would normally think of as God.

Pro can start presenting arguments and evidence in the first round - there is no "acceptance round."


Greetings, I am a biblical creationist who trusts that the biblical account of God, the Creator and Savior, to be accurate and true based on evidence and reason. I will be presenting a primarily scientific argument, however with serious philosophical ramifications. While I trust in the biblical God, I will be arguing for a more generic God of creation, that is, a God who can at least be shown to transcend physical matter, possess a supreme level of intelligence, be singular in nature, and be immensely powerful beyond all measure.

Some may refer to God as omnipotent and omniceint however the Bible does not use such terminology. While I believe that God is "all-knowing" and "all-powerful," there is no way for me to substantiate such qualities. I believe it is sufficient to demonstrate His supreme intelligence and immense power. As for omnibenevolence or "all-loving" this can be subjective and if you are not using the Bible to define righteousness and love, then many actions or inactions of God can be construed as unloving.

A reasonable prediction of the creation model would be that evidence exists within organisms which testify to their being originally created by an intelligent agent as opposed to unguided natural processes. If it can be shown that the blueprint for all organic life, namely genomes, must have been created by an intelligent agent, any naturalistic model would be inplausable.

Argument from Genetic Information

The cells of all organic life forms contain information in the form of genetic code. The chain of genetic code known as DNA harbors the amino acids which themselves contain no semantic meaning, but when placed in a linguistic sequence, can be readily utilized in forming every phenotype known to biology.

The living cell demonstrates a system of communication, particularly between DNA and proteins. DNA codes for proteins which go on to form every part of a creature, including the very DNA from which it was coded. DNA is a macro-molecule in the shape of a double-helix with a sugar-phosphate backbone.

The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of those bases are the same in all people. The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences, or even the way 1's and 0's appear in a certain order to form binary computer code.

DNA bases pair up with each other, A with T and C with G, to form units called base pairs. Each base is also attached to a sugar molecule and a phosphate molecule. Together, a base, sugar, and phosphate are called a nucleotide. Nucleotides are arranged in two long strands that form a spiral called a double helix. The structure of the double helix is somewhat like a ladder, with the base pairs forming the ladder’s rungs and the sugar and phosphate molecules forming the vertical sidepieces of the ladder.

Image result for dna

An important property of DNA is that it can replicate, or make copies of itself. Each strand of DNA in the double helix can serve as a pattern for duplicating the sequence of bases. This is critical when cells divide because each new cell needs to have an exact copy of the DNA present in the old cell.

DNA serves as the blueprint for every creature's phenotype. Since DNA is a language system in which communication occurs between a sender and receiver, it can rightfully be said to contain true information.


"To fully characterise the concept of information, five aspects must be considered: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. Information is represented (that is, formulated, transmitted, stored) as a language. From a stipulated alphabet, the individual symbols are assembled into words (code). From these words (each word having been assigned a meaning), sentences are formed according to the firmly defined rules of grammar (syntax). These sentences are the bearers of semantic information. Furthermore, the action intended/carried out (pragmatics) and the desired/achieved goal (apobetics) belong of necessity to the concept of information. . . an encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose. We term any entity meeting the requirements of this definition as 'universal information' (UI)."


In the function of the genome within living cells we find statistics in the form of four letters which are cosyntactically organized to give the semantic meaning for transcription and translation. The semantic meaning encoded in the genome is pragmatically utilized in the formation of proteins and thus integral to the process of replication which is a part of the apobetic, or intended goal of the digital code.

In the reference I provided, one will notice Dr. Werner Gitt's four scientific laws of information (SLI). I will assume for the moment that Con agrees with the first two laws, if not he can explain why. The contention certainly arises with the 3rd and 4th laws.

A material entity cannot generate a non-material entity.

Universal information is a non-material fundamental entity.

Universal information cannot be created by statistical processes.

Universal information can only be produced by an intelligent sender.

In order to refute SLI-3, one would need to demonstrate even one example of statistical processes producing UI which meets the criteria of the five levels of information. The primary reason such an example is infeasible is that statistical processes can never produce information containing semantic meaning, let alone pragmatic, purposeful code.

SLI-4 is substantiated by Dr. Gitt's SLI-4a-d:

Every code is based upon a mutual agreement between sender and receiver.

There is no new universal information without an intelligent sender.

Every information transmission chain can be traced back to an intelligent sender.

Attributing meaning to a set of symbols is an intellectual process requiring intelligence.


Information intrinsically depends upon an original act of intelligence to construct it, therefore the information seen in living cells testifies to having been originally created by an intelligent Creator. Note that this argument is not based upon the inability for naturalistic/statistical processes alone to account for the formation of genetic information, but rather my case is built upon what we do know about genetic code and function. Therefore this is not a god-of-the-gaps argument, as the claim is based on observation. Note also that this is not an argument from complexity but from specified universal information. To refute my case is actually quite a simple task; one must only need demonstrate a single case where universal information, of the type seen in genetic code, is derived entirely from purely material sources.


Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank my opponent for participating in this debate. The argument they present is much better organized than most theists I have debated on this issue previously.

My opponent begins with a discussion of DNA, which I enjoyed reading, and asserts that DNA contains information. Since DNA contains information, and information requires the intervention of an intelligent agent, DNA must have been created by an intelligent agent. The conclusion that allegedly follows from this is that there is a God with the following properties: they "transcend physical matter, possess a supreme level of intelligence, be singular in nature, and be immensely powerful beyond all measure."

First of all, I think the conclusion clearly does not follow from the premises offered. For example, there could have been an intelligent alien with an advanced knowledge of science who came to earth at the dawn of life and engineered DNA. DNA could have been the result of a team of scientists from another planet; it's a bit of a far fetched scenario, but it's worth considering before appealing to God. Another possibility is that a human scientist with a time machine went back in time and planted organisms with DNA in the primordial soup.

But even after these criticisms are taken into account, the argument would still leave us with the conclusion that DNA was created by an intelligence, which most in the scientific community would wish to avoid. So it is desirable to criticize the premises of the argument, in addition to criticizing the inference to God.

My opponent claims that "Since DNA is a language system in which communication occurs between a sender and receiver, it can rightfully be said to contain true information." However, this is only true metaphorically. DNA is not literally a language system, because it is not used to communicate between conscious agents - it is just a bunch of chemicals acting according to the laws of chemistry. It could be useful to refer to DNA as a language metaphorically, but it is not literally a language.

Likewise, DNA does not literally contain an alphabet, symbols, words, sentences, grammar, semantics, or pragmatics. All of these concepts assume that there are conscious agents who are communicating by means of the language. They can only be applied to DNA metaphorically.

My opponent also writes, "Attributing meaning to a set of symbols is an intellectual process requiring intelligence." This renders their argument question begging. If a set of symbols only have meaning when an intelligence ascribes it to them, then in describing DNA as having meaning my opponent has assumed that it was created by an intelligence. If it was not, then it does not have meaning, and does not count as information, because there is no intelligence to attribute meaning to it. The conclusion is built into the premises.

I conclude that my opponent's argument is not successful, and that they have not met their burden of proof. Thank you.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by creationtruth 10 months ago
Alright, I will be sending you the challenge within the next 24 hrs.
Posted by Ockham 10 months ago
creationtruth, why don't you set up the debate? My Round 1 post in this debate is superfluous if we know what argument for God we want to debate. You should just copy your Round 1 post into a new debate and then challenge me.
Posted by creationtruth 10 months ago
Apologies, things came up this weekend and I was unable to respond to this debate. I am available all week and am willing to have the debate reinstated and we can copy/paste our arguments. Regards.
Posted by jakabus 10 months ago
IMO con has already lost... not love or the universe hahaha would you like some flesh like evidence? Its not going to happen... use your common sense!
Posted by canis 10 months ago
Exist ?
Posted by canis 10 months ago
God does not exist. Just not believe in it....You youself shall then feel that god does not exist...
Posted by deepnoor 10 months ago
God does exist. Just believe in it as well as follow healthy practices in life eg. good lifestyle, health, profession, and avoid mysticism by understanding science. You yourself shall then feel that God exists.
Posted by canis 10 months ago
You shoud define "exist".."Spiderman 3" exist...As a movie. Gods exist in books..And talk about these books.
Posted by missmedic 10 months ago
You do not use or need knowledge, proof or evidence for gods.
Gods exist on belief alone, if you don't have belief then gods do not exist.
Posted by Ockham 10 months ago
I don't want to get hung up on the definition of a reasonable definition of God, because it's inherently a somewhat vague issue. If you're not sure whether your definition of God is one I would consider reasonable, then you can post it in the comments section before accepting the debate and I will comment on it.
This debate has 6 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.