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

God exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/19/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 450 times Debate No: 82792
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




Con will say whether he wants to show why my arguments don't work, or he could attempt to show the absence of God. Con can give an argument in Round 1.

NOTE: Do NOT forfeit. If someone forfeits a debate, the debate will quit updating. If you do forfeit, the other person will automatically 'win'.


I won't post my argument this round. I'll wait and see what you have to say. I would like to define a few words just so it's clear upfront:

God: "the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe"

Exists: "have objective reality or being." (googled)

Objective: "(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." (googled)

Perfect: "having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be." (googled)

I look forward to debating you on this. I am agnostic so I think this will be interesting as you seem to be religious based on your other debates. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


My argument is the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

1) Everything that begins to exist must have a cause

This Point's self explanatory. The Universe could've only began to exist, as the next point explains. God has always existed, so he doesn't need a cause.

2) The Universe began to exist

Under these points, the Universe couldn't have always existed:

2a] Time Regression

Assuming the Universe has always existed, time itself would have had to exist. If the Universe always existed, time would be infinite, therefore now couldn't happen, and we couldn't stand here on November 18th, 2015, since time would be at "-999999999999", and even further had it always existed.

2b] Usable Energy would run out now

Ignoring Time Regression, let's assume we could be here if the Universe always existed. According to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, we are running out of usable energy. Had the universe always existed, energy would've been out by now.

2c] the Universe is expanding

In 1929, Edwin Hubble made the discovery that the Universe in indeed expanding. "When he plotted redshift against relative distance, he found that the redshift of distant galaxies increased as a linear function of their distance. The only explanation for this observation is that the universe was expanding."

The universe is expanding, therefore it has been a small point millennia ago, which we call the "Big Bang".

3] Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

Because I've proven premises 1 and 2 to be correct, the conclusion is true. Now, what caused the Universe to exist? There is but only 1 logical conclusion, a being which always existed, unaffected by time, and powerful enough to break physics: God.

If Con concedes, please keep attending the debate anyways, because it'll stop progressing if you forfeit a round. May we see Con's rebuttal.


I would like to apologize to my opponent. Unfortunately, I am not able to post my argument tonight as one of my family members has been killed. I sincerely apologize for this inconvenience. If my opponent is up for it, I would be willing to let this round just time out and ignore it. If my opponent does not see this as an option, I totally understand. If this is the case, I encourage the voters to vote for my opponent.

Again, I am so sorry. This was a shock to everyone. Thank you for your time.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent has said the same thing in another debate of hers. I hope you get better soon. If you concede, that's fine. Until then, my arguments do stand. The universe has a cause, which said cause is God.

Toretorden has posted a pretty good counter reasoning to my argument in the comments. Here's the 1st half of it.

"The argument that there must be a god because "everything that begins to exist must have a cause", shouldn't that mean there must be a cause to god as well? It sounds like there should be an endless line of Gods causing eachother to exist. But, you seem to contradict your posed "everything" rule by making a special exception in God's case. But if you can do this in the case of God, couldn't you also do it in the case of the universe?"

I will defend my case, of course. (Even though comments aren't really a real argument. But I might as well explain.)

"shouldn't that mean there must be a cause to god as well?"

I've shown that the Universe indeed has a cause. God, however, doesn't need a cause. He always existed. Anything which begins has a cause, not everything in existence has a cause. If everything which ever existed must have a cause, then how would we even exist? This is why an "exception" must be made for a being to create the Universe, aka God.

"But if you can do this in the case of God, couldn't you also do it in the case of the universe?"

You most likely misinterpreted the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Again, I've listed reasons showing that the Universe began to exist.

I'll probably leave it at that for now, since it was just a comment, and not a debate argument. If toretorden wants to debate me, go ahead. Until then, Pika!


I am still interested in debating this topic with you. I have said the same thing on another debate of mine as I wanted to let both my opponents know what was happening and why I couldn't finish the debate well.

I understand if my opponent would like to take this debate as a win for himself. If that is the case, I encourage voters to vote for him as I can not adequately present an argument at this time.

After the funeral I would be willing to challenge you to a debate on the same topic if you're interested.
Debate Round No. 3


I understand.


queenmary forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by LordBeaumont 11 months ago
Weird argument about time, in fact it barely makes, no it really makes no sense at all. If time was infinite surely it would just keep going, forever. That's kinda how infinity works. Also there's an interesting theory that the universe is just cycling, from big bang to total implosion where the universe consists of a massive black hole with all the matter in the universe in it. Then it implodes, because its gravity is so strong, and consumes itself and then big bang again. It's really cool:
Posted by PowerPikachu21 11 months ago
@toretorden I will elaborate on your premise if queenmary posts her argument. If she ends up forfeiting, you can challenge me to a debate on the matter.
Posted by toretorden 11 months ago
The argument that there must be a god because "everything that begins to exist must have a cause", shouldn't that mean there must be a cause to god as well? It sounds like there should be an endless line of Gods causing eachother to exist. But, you seem to contradict your posed "everything" rule by making a special exception in God's case. But if you can do this in the case of God, couldn't you also do it in the case of the universe?

Also, what if the universe was caused as a consequence of something that happened to another universe before it? And that universe was caused by the universe before that into infinity? You got causality all over, which satisfies the rule you posed and you don't even have to make a special case in which you are allowed to break it.
Posted by queenmary 11 months ago
Thank you! I'm definitely looking forward to this. I think it'll be really interesting to see what a person with a religion has for proof. I'm always interested in hearing different sides to this argument. I was a little cautious to accept, though, because sometimes these debates can get out of hand die to closed minds and opinions. I'm hoping this will be different, and I will do my absolute best to make sure everything is respectful. I don't want any hard feelings.
Posted by catsigliere 11 months ago
This will definitely be interesting. I'm an agnostic myself, so I remain mostly neutral but side with the more "there isn't any proof". I'll watch out for this, particularly because I feel like it might be amusing as well. Pika, if you can provide enough proof to make atheists and agnostics trip up, I may rethink my current opinion. But I'm also directing this towards Queen as well - either way, I'm curious to see how it plays out and probably will remain identifying as agnostic. Good luck!
Posted by Lager 11 months ago
I will be watching this debate. I don't see any button that allows for a debate to be followed,so I'm just writing this comment so I can be emailed when there's any new arguments posted.If there's a way to follow a debate, I hope someone lets me know because I don't want to have to comment every time I want to follow a debate.
Posted by OctoberSky 11 months ago
Hey! Can't wait to see where this debate goes. I want to see both sides.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wipefeetnmat 10 months 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro advanced all arguments. I give my condolences to Con.