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

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
Moelogy has forfeited round #5.
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: 8/6/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 725 times Debate No: 103432
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (28)
Votes (0)




I will be arguing in this debate that the case for God is extensive and is most often underrated. I will be using science, philosophy and logic to form the foundations for my arguments for God.

I am a Theist and my opponent should most likely be an atheist who denies the existence of God.Definitions :Universe - all of space, matter, time and energy

God - The necessary, uncaused, omnimaximal, timeless, spaceless being.
Exists - to have an objective being or existence.

Rules :
-no trolling
-no forfeits
-no semantics (tweaking definitions of the dictionary)

Rounds :
Round one - acceptance
R2) arguments
R3) Rebuttals + arguments
R4) Rebuttals
R5) Rebuttals

BOP : Burden of proof will be shared. The opponent (who is most likely an atheist) will have to demonstrate that God does not exist. Since claiming that the natural reality is all that exists and that there is no supernatural reality is a claim. Whoever claims that God does not exist is making a negative claim and therefore should prove it. Proving a negative claim is possible because you can prove that there are no muslims in the U.S. senate, there are no dinosaurs on the face of the Earth, the sun does not orbit the Earth. all of those were negative claims that should and could be proven. The most logical position taken if you reject the claim that there is a God would be an agnostic, who claims that he simply does not know since you would still have no evidence for/against either sides. No arguments against religion shall be made since you could disprove all religions and you still would not undermine or even address the reliability of God.


Sure, I'm in. Sounds like fun. I wish you luck and hope for a good debate.

I don't deny the existence of God, just as you don't deny the existence of Allah.

As another note, please no presuppositionalism, or at least don't rely too heavily on it. I hate it when you provide an argument and then they say you can't use reason. At that point, it is hardly a debate. That's all I ask.

Debate Round No. 1


Argument from Fine Tuning:

P1) There is incomprehensibly improbably fine tuning of the universe for life (sometimes, even for the universe to exist)
P2) The only logical explanations are chance, necessity or design
P3) It is not due to necessity or chance
Conclusion : The fine tuning of the universe is due to design.

P1) The cosmological constant is fine tuned to tha probability of 1 in 10^120. [0] Some even suggest 1 in 10^123 if applying the recent findings of quantum mechanics.[1] There are over 15 other fine tuned physical constants like critical density of early universe which is fine tuned to 1 in 10^40. [2] [3] However, truth be noted most of the fine tuning of the universe are situations like the probability that the early universe had an even distribution of mass and energy is 1 in 10^10^123. [4] [5] Multiply the probability of this incomprehensibly unlikely event happening by other unlikely events by infinitesimall likelihood of the fine tuning of all 15 constnats to a perfect match and you will comprehend the scale of this phenomenon.

P2) True unless my opponent wants to provide any other explanation.

P3) Necessity : Some constants do not even have to exist and you would still have a universe (hostile to any form of life, however) [2] therefore they are not necessary constants.

Chance : According to mathematicians, anything with the possibility of 1 in 10^50 is basically impossible [6] I have already proven that two of the fine tuning parameters have values exceeding well past this number. (1 in 10^120 and 1 in 10^10^123). However, to put that into prespective, the ENTIRE universe has 10^82 atoms in total. [7] To illustrate this, imagine a blindfoleded man in a room. You fill the room up with literally ALL the atoms in the universe but paint only one atom green. The likelihood that the man picked the green atom out of the 10^82 atoms is more likely than the cosmological constant having a value that permits life. LET THAT SINK IN. Multiply this incomprehensible unlikelihood by other likely improbable constants by the other unlikely events and you will realize that the chance explanation is a joke that no cosmologist takes seriously.

It takes less faith for design.

"This is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all . . . it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming." - Paul Davies



Implications : The deliberate designer would have to exist before the universe existed (to design some of the constants required for the universe to even exist) and is therefore independent of nature (supernatural), universe and its dimensions (spaceless, timeless, immaterial, non-physical, etc.). The traits of this supernatural designer proves it is most likely God.

The Introspective Argument

P1) The mind exists
P2) Mind is not reducible to matter
P3) Substance dualism is false
C1) All is mind
P4) Solipsism is false and only theism is left to account for this
C2) Only theism can account for this
C3) Since Theism is true, God exists

Premise 1)

Theist or atheist, your mind and conciousness is the only thing you can be certain exists and is not an illusion. The fact that there is something going on around you and that you are experienceing something is undeniable. Even isolating yourself as much as possible from your surroundings then closing your eyes, the only thing you will notice is your mind, conciousness and mental experience. This is proven by Rene Descrates' "I think Therefore I am". To doubt the existence of the mind itself requires a mind. Sam Harris further corroborates my point. [8]


This is self-evident as can be illustrated through the distinction between the properties of the mind and the properties of the matter. For example, sugar as matter does not carry with it the "taste" of sugar. The substance would be sugar and the mental property would be the taste of sugar or Qualia which is obviously distinct from sugar itself since taste is all a mental experience and property. When you die, even if you have sugar in your mouth (matter), you will not have ualia to experience the taste. This is also evident with feeling pain (mental) and electrical signal (physical/matter) to the brain. The whole point of this passage is that our mental experience is fundementally different from matter. Sam Harris agrees with so that no amount of introspection of the mental experience can reduce to the matter. [9] Further corroboration and confirmation can be found in the Levine's explanatory gap and in the argument from modal idealism. Moreover even further confirmation can be found in the case of Mary, the color scientist. (


Though it appears obvious that the mind is immaterial, there is a problem. We often think of the world as divided between immaterial mind and material matter, the ghost and the machine. But there is a problem with this view often referred to as the interaction problem.
My immaterial mind can move my material body, but my material body moves via a material force. Thus if my mind can interact with my body, it must produce material forces. However if it produces material forces, it can not really be immaterial at all.
Thus substance dualism is found to be self-contradictory at close inspection and must be rejected. But if immaterial mind already exists, then no other substance can. Thus matter can not exist, and idealism is true necessarily.

atheist youtuber Gary Edwards illustrates this wonderfully here :;

- The interaction problem for substance dualism

Conclusion 1 predicts the philosophical foundations of quantum mechanics of the universe being a mental construct and that there is no objective reality and rather all of reality is subjective mental construct and that WE create objective reality. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]


"..... a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism" - Richard Conn Henry and Stephen R. Palmquist

However, solipsism can be debunked or rather prove God with a simple reductio ad absurdum argument

P1) If solipisism is conceivable, then a possible world exists with only mind (Per definition)
P2) Solipsism is conceivable
P3) Possible worlds can not be composed of only processes and properties, but must include entities
P4) There is no difference between the mind existing in a solipsist world and the actual world (Leibiniz's Law of indescernability of Identicals)
C1) Thus, the mind can not be a property but must be an entity
C2) Solipsism entails an eternal mind in the actual world which is the theistic view of God
C3) Solipsism, even if true, proves God.

Implications : If all is mind, then reality is dependent on a much larger eternal concious mind ... God and can not be entirely dependent on our mental construct (solispsism disproven)

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force .. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter" - Max Planck

Some find this argument irrational but ...

" .. most of the scientific community will reject these ideas .. their reasons are based on prejudice rather than sound argument" - Euan Squires.

Modal Ontological Argument:

P1) It is possible that a Maximally Great being (MGB) exists
P2) If MGB is possible, he exists in some possible world
P3) If MGB exists in some possible world, he exists in all possible worlds
P4) If MGB exists in all possible worlds, he exists in the actual world
Conclusion : MGB or God exists

Premise one) It is definitely possible for God or a MGB to exist in some possible world since it is not a logical contradiction.

Premise 2) If MGB is possible to exist, it logically follows that he exists in some possible world since existing in some possible world would lend truth to the possibility of his existence.

Premise 3) a maximally great being is by definition, one which has all the properties favorable to have than not. His existence would necessitate having all the great properties to the fullest extent. One great property that he would have to the fullest extent would be the property of necessity. a MGB would be categorized as a necessary being rather than a contingent being for it is greater and to a fuller extent to exist in all possible worlds (necessary) rather than to exist in some possible world (contingent). Therefore, a MGB would have to be a necessary entity. a necessary entity by definition is one that exists in all possible worlds including the world that we currently live in i.e. the actual world.

Premise 4) If God exists in the set of all possible worlds, it logically entails that he exists in this actual world since this world is possible to exist and does exist. Some might claim that reality and the actual world is an illusion or some computer stimulation, however, this has been disproven by Rene Descartes' "I think therefore I am".

Conclusion : If God exists in this world, then God exists in the actual world.

Question begging?

Some critics and skeptics might say that the argument uses God's definition to prove the existence of God. However. This is maliciously false since the argument uses the philosophy of ontology. [16] Moreover, the skeptics of such argument fail to recognize the difference between "de dre" and "de dicto". [17]


Some claim that the argument could be used to argue for the existence of a single horned horse or the unicorn. However, proponents of this objection fail to realize the distinction that unicorns are contingent entities while a MGB entails necessity of his existence.


I am honestly not sure of the religion of my opponent, so I will presume Christianity. If this is wrong, just adjust biblical examples to examples from the Koran or such. I will be running three contentions; the argument from divine hiddenness, the argument from poor design, and the problem of evil.

Argument from Divine Hiddenness

If God wishes to have a relationship with us, is safe to assume to everyone who wishes/wished to have a relationship with him would have it. This is not the case. It would seem God is playing favorites by revealing himself with undeniable proof to some, but not others. Saul got a Damascus Road experience where he got to meet God personally. Moses talked to God face to face. Hell, Joseph got to wrestle with God for Christ’s sake (admittedly, this would be an awesome cage match). Why isn’t this supposed fact of God’s existence known by everyone? In relationships, people don’t typically argue about the person’s existence.

Some have attempted to absolve this problem, by saying that if God revealed himself to everyone, there would be no free will in the matter and no need for faith. First off, why is faith important? Faith, as used in religion, can be used to defend anything, since it doesn’t require proof. No hypothesis worth consideration in science is proven on faith, rather evidence. Do scientists gather on Sunday, singing “Yes I know the Higgs Boson is real. Yes I know in my heart in Higgs Boson is real. I will have faith. Amen.” If they did such a thing, you would think they would be rather insecure on the concept. Second off, free will doesn’t explain this problem away. God could still give absolute proof to everyone, and people could still reject him. Lucifer had absolute proof of God's existence but still ended up rejecting him. Third, the very existence of free will is argued about in philosophy, it isn't a given premise.

Argument From Poor Design

There are roughly 2 trillion galaxies in our visible universe, and as found by Edwin Hubble, are all rapidly moving away from each other, ever since the Big Bang. They aren’t slowing down, in fact they are speeding up, due to acceleration from dark energy. In some time there will Everything will be so far away, the light from distant stars and galaxies could never reach them due to the expansion of the universe being faster than the speed of light. Once the rate of expansion is large enough, galaxies, stars, planets, and matter (potentially even the subatomic building blocks that comprise all matter) can no longer hold themselves together, at which point they rip apart. Sadly this isn’t the only model for the death of the universe. If not a Big Rip, there are potential models of a Big Freeze, a Big Crunch, and a Big Slurp to destroy everything. Of course, even before this, the Andromeda Galaxy collides with the Milky Way, and our sun turns into a red giant, and a red dwarf, burning our planet into a crisp.

Take our little planet, with every other rock in our solar system either being too hot or too cold, as is most of our planet. Our very existence is on a knife’s edge, ready to topple over. When we still lived on the African Savannah, it’s been estimated that we as a species were down to a few thousand members due to climatic change. We nearly did join the fate of the 99.9% of all species who have ever lived, and become extinct. This is some design. By some estimates, humanity has been around for 200,000 years. So for 200,000 years, humanity is born, a great deal of it dieing childbirth, infant mortality extraordinary, being killed by microorganisms that we didn’t know even existed, by earthquakes we thought to be portends, storms that we didn’t know came from our climate system, and of course man made atrocities. For about at least 190,000 years, this nonsense goes on, till Heaven decides to finally intervene.

One must say, if there is a divine designer, this is one hell of an intelligent design. If one wishes to thank the divine for his wonderful fine tuning as my opponent so wishes, they must accept all the other implications.

Problem of Evil

The problem of evil has been covered by everyone from Epicurus to Mamomides to Lex Luthor. As a corollary to this, I don't think I need to explain it syllogistically to such a sophisticated debater as my opponent. Either way, the argument has proposed that there is a contradiction between the existence of evil or an excessive amount, and an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent (OOO) deity. The problem has been described by some to be the Achilles heel of theology.

Various theodicies have been proposed such as free will and divine retribution. Of course, these theodicies could be used to support an omnimalevolent, omnipotent, omniscient deity (OD) as well. Why is there good? OD wants man to freely choose evil rather than good. It is all part of his perfect plan. Good will be punished in the afterlife, and all evil beings can live forever in paradise. OD works in mysterious ways(or if you prefer, delirious). Maybe this is the best of all possible worlds? Whatever theodicies a theologian conjures can not only be used for an OOO deity, but an OD as well.


Debate Round No. 2


Important Notice

Con's arguments already fail since at best, they disprove the theistic version of God who intervenes and sustains this world. However, Con's arguments fail miserably at disproving God because what if diesm is true and God does not intervene in this world? Then all of Con's arguments lose their foundation since they all presuppose that God intervenes in this world.

R1) Argument from Divine Hideness

On God revealing himself

God reveals himself to those who earnestly seek him. Most of the time, God reveals himself to those who have spent their entire life seeking him and trying to find him or establish a personal experience with them (except for Paul). There have been numerous cases where people who earnestly seek God have found them and God have revealed himself to them. [1] However, This barely happens to atheists because most atheists spend their entire lives denying God and trying to disprove God which is definitevely and gradually moving them away from path to God so how is it that they expect to find him or establish a relationship with him if they are close-minded and spend their entire lives denying him and disproving him? How exactly would they find God if they are moving in the other direction of disbelief? Atheists are more close-minded than religious people [2] and thus it is self-evident why God would not reveal himself to them .. because they will not set out to embark on a relationship with God. God reveals him to those who earnestly seek him and this is empirical which is an argument against the argument from divine hideness.

On the evidence for God

I believe God has created tons of evidence for his existence that I have discussed a slim part of in this debate. However, the evidence is clear enough for those who earnestly seek God but not too obvious and in your face as to allow free will to take precendence. For Con to just proclaim that there is no evidence and that God is hiding from us is just presupposing that I lost the debate and that there is no evidence for God. Atheist apologists like Matt Dillahaunty even realized that this is entire argument is based on a presupposition that theism is wrong and that there is no evidence for God and he stopped using this argument in his debates. However, I do doubt that even if there was a knock-down proof for God, that atheists would actually start accepting God since they have a higher tendency to be close-minded. [2]

The biggest knockdown rebuttal to this argument is that atheists are very close-minded [2] and thus it follows that they are less likely to search for the evidence of a God or try to establish a relationship with God.

R2) Poor Design

On the poor design on Earth

Con makes a point that most of Earth is mostly unhabitable but that is simply false. People live all throughout the world. From Alaska to Australia to Antartica to Greenland, Humans can and do exist everywhere on Earth. Con notes that diseases and miscarriages and infant immortality kill us and uses this as a contention that God does not exist. I applaude on this acheivement in creativity but I do not have the slightest of clue how diseases' or miscarriages' existence mean God does not exist. Maybe God created them as a parameter for population control. They could simply be the result of God's departation from sinful man or the fact that if God did interfere and did stop this evil, then he would show himself to everybody by dismantling the laws of physics and now there would be universal proof of God but that would take away Man's freewill because now humans will not worship God because they love him or because they can feel him in their hearts but because they would be scared of hell. Maybe diseases are a means to improve human immunity and make stronger healthier humans meaning God is just trying to make us stronger. Maybe they are tools for God to test the faith, patience, love and loyalty of his test subjects. We can get as creative as we want right along Con's creative tracks that miscarriages somehow disprove God. Con even makes the absurd claim that man made atrocities contribute to the poor design of humans and disproves God which is probably leaving the readers puzzled. The syllogism that

P1) Humans kill each other
P2) God does not exist

is an obvious non-sequitur.

"Take our little planet, with every other rock in our solar system either being too hot or too cold, as is most of our planet. Our own existence is on a razor edge"

I hope that Con realizes that he has just defeated his own case here. He has reaffirmed the fact that our planet is fine tuned for life which it is. If the Earth was just a tiny little bit further from the sun, Earth would leave the goldilock zone and water will freeze prohibitting life. If Earth was closer, It would still exit the Goldilock zone but the temperature would be too high (since closer to sun) that the water will end up in vapours still prohibiting life from forming. This fine tuning which proves that our existence is on a razor edge as Con stated thus proving that our world is fine tuned for life and is deliberaltely designed that way.

For me, the most promiment rebuttal to this argument is that it is a non-sequitur.

R3) Problem of Evil

On the man-made evil

Man-made evil is eactly what it sounds like. It is evil caused by Man's freewill capacity to commit both Good and Evil. If God did interfere with the world and did prohibit evil from happening, then why even call it a test? If God allows humans to ONLY commit Good but not evil, on what basis will he judge them? On what basis is it even called a fair test anymore since it is guided by the test taker who will only allow his subjects to do the right thing?

Analogy: Suppose your teachers passed a test to the entire class, however before any student circled the wrong answer or did the wrong decision, she would interfere prevent the wrongdoing and correct the student allowing only the right answers to be recorded on the test. Is this even a test?

In order for God to be able to judge man on his actions, he has to allow them to make their own decisions. If God did stop every bad action that humans take like colonization, slavery, etc. How is this a fair test? How would he even judge people if there is no wrong and only right? God will judge the good and the bad accordingly. Why even create hell if everything humans do is good? Thus who suffer from man-made evil will be rewarded accordingly and thos who create man-made evil will be punished accordingly.

On Natural "evil"

-God departed from the world

The only reason that Natural evil exists in this world is because God departed from this world. The world was perfect before man sinned, it was a world of gardens, rivers, trees and no death and no diseases and no natural disasters. When man sinned, the world became imperfect because sin entered through man's freewill to do evil. God is perfect and all-good and so he was forced by his own nature to depart from this imperfect world since him being the perfect being could not inhavit an imperfect world. When God who is the source of order and love is absent from this world, chaos and evil flourishes since God's love is absent from this world driven out by man's sin. Chaos and evil and diseases and disasters are only possible if God is absent and that is as far as Con and Pro will agree. However, God is absent from this world because man made it imperfect by choosing to sin and therefore God the source of infinite Goodness, love and order took all love and goodness with him as he left the imperfect world and left this Earth a place of diseases and natural disasters.

- Texas Sharpshooter fallacy

Another reason I do not take the problem of evil seriously is because of the texas sharpshooter fallacy it commits. For the naturalist like Con, there is no such thing as evil. We are all a meaningless collection of atoms who came here by a miracle of accidents. Lighting, diseases, natural disasters are all meaningless byproducts of this chain. Why does Con call it evil? If Con wants to be consistent, he should do so with all the data not just the data that proves the problem of evil. He should also take into account the data that first and foremost, he is a naturalist and from a naturalist perspective there is no evil and no good. Just a series of happy accidents.

As Richard Dawkins put it in the God delusion.

"There is no God ..... No Evil and No Good. Nothing, but blind pitiless indifference."

I hope it is now clear that for the naturalists like Con, there is no evil and the whole notion of an unconcious collection of atoms being evil is nonsense, at least for the naturalist. However, I am sure Con made this as an honest mistake since he seems to be a sophisticated and genuine young man.

Sources :

[1] -
[2] -


Deism VS Interventionalism

If deism is true, God can't reveal himself, nor judge man by placing them in heaven or hell as my opponent propagates. Second, under the hypothesis of deism, God is unfalsifiable. If he doesn't show himself, how could we know if he is there or not? At that point God is unfalsifiable, undetectable, and unknowable, and what is the difference between that and a God that didn't exist at all.

Fine Tuning

I am not a cosmologist, by extension I am not qualified to debate this scientifically. If my opponent is, thats great, but I be willing to bet against it. So I will attempt to argue on philosophical grounds, and please forgive me if I make any scientific mistakes.

First off, one must ask the likelihood of God existing. If the universe's existence is incredibly unlikely, this tells us nothing about the probability of a designer.

Second off, there is the possibility of the multiverse. Not to say for certain it exists, but it is a potential solution.

Third, if I may counter with a separate quote from Hawking, "The intelligent beings in these regions should therefore not be surprised if they observe that their locality in the universe satisfies the conditions that are necessary for their existence. It is a bit like a rich person living in a wealthy neighborhood not seeing any poverty"


Why is mind not reducible to matter? Upon brain death, where lobes cease to function, it is impossible to feel anything since your neural processes have ceased to work. Similar things happen as an effect of trauma or brain injury. Is the mind not contingent to matter, due to every physical effect on the brain impacting your mind itself?

I do find your quote from Squire's humorous. I could say the same about anything. "Most of the scientific community will reject these ideas about healing stones.. their reasons are based on prejudice rather than sound argument." If a scientist could prove the existence of souls, neuroscience would be turned upside down and he would win a bazillion nobel prizes.

Modal Ontologic

The ontological argument has been rejected many times, including Aquinas and Kant, and now me. The primary problem with this argument is that you define God into existence, by making existence part of his properties. If an object nessarily exists, it must in fact exist, but defining it so it fits said properties does not make it so. Second, how do you know this being is even possible? Some have even argued that the very existence of a being is self-contradictory.

Divine Hiddeness

You do realize that by saying that God reveals himself to whoever earnestly seeks him, makes your position unfalsifiable. If someone sees God, hallelujah, praise the Lord. If they don't, they must not have earnestly sought him, or had sin in their heart, etc. You set up a win win scenario for yourself. And for many people throughout history, it is hard to seek God without even an idea of his existence, as with the Native Americans. Multitudes of people have converted to Scientology and such, yet this doesn't make it true.

I disagree with your statement of atheist's close-mindedness. Almost all atheists were formerly members of another religion, and they changed their mind about God. Ask any atheist if they used to belong to a religion, most of them would say yes. Their very existence for the most part, was based on their ability to change their minds in one of the most fundamental beliefs one can have. This is not to say there are no close minded atheists, but most of whom are who they are today, because they could change their mind. An author of the study my opponent cited said himself that "the relationship between religion and closed-mindedness depended on the specific aspect of closed-mindedness." He also has said that they "do not know whether the findings are typical only for the Western European (secularized) context in which the study was conducted, or it reflects more global tendencies… With that in mind, and the fact that the effect sizes found in our study were quite small, a replication would be due to confirm the stability of the findings."

Poor Design

When did I ever say that Earth was mostly uninhabitable? People can live all throughout the world and even in outer space through the advent of science. The universe is a different story.

My argument was not against God's existence, though it can be used for that, rather against omnimaximal status of his being. Imagine if an architect designed a zoo almost completely uninhabitable, and 99.9% of animals died. My opponent presented the Fine Tuning Argument, propagating that God is the divine watchmaker. However, if this argument is valid, you must accept the implications of it. If God is responsible for the design of the universe, you must give him credit for not only the good, but the bad as well.

You do realize that free will itself is debated in philosophy vigorously, and even some Christians disagree with this motion. Some variants of the Calvinist, and to lesser extent Lutheran ideas of predestination disbelieve in free will. One's eternal destination is determined before birth, and your potential damnation is up to the whim of God. Second off, many people already worship God, without absolute proof, due to a fear of hell. Was this not what Pascal's Wager was based upon? Third, how is it a violation of free will to reveal yourself. If Trump said something about nuking N. Korea, you have no choice but to believe he said that, or at least someone said he said that. Every time you turn on the news and learn something new, this would supposedly be a violation of free will. God could very well reveal himself to everyone, yet this would not necessitate that everyone worships him. As mentioned before, Satan had absolute knowledge of God, yet still rejected him. And if God revealing himself messes with free will, how exactly do miracles occur such as turning water into wine or making it rain loaves and fishes?

God doesn't need to fine tune anything. If he is omnipotent as you suggest, the critical mass of the early universe doesn't matter. He's God, he could just abracadabra and create life if he so wished. Only under naturalism would you expect life to be incredibly rare if humanity is part of God's perfect plan

If you wish to applaud my creativity, may I present my next (parody) argument?

P1 Unicorns exist and are Nazis
P2 Nazism leads to grammar intolerance
P3 Grammer Nazis are ride Volswagons
P4 Volkswagons are bad, therefore
C1 God doesn't exist

Problem of Evil

I've already partially covered this in poor design, so forgive me if I repeat myself. Again, to use the free will theodicy, it must be proved that free will exists. It hasn't. My opponent's analogy presumes that life is a test, yet this has not been given justification. Second, right and wrong are categories of actions. You could pick from multiple immoral options, such as rape, murder, and torture; while at the same time pick from multiple moral options, such as charity, honesty, and kindness. Even if only immoral options were available, we could still have free will, due to us being able to pick many various options. My opponent offers no justification for the afterlife, merely asserting that God will judge everyone accordingly.

Debate Round No. 3


On Deism

That is simply false. A desit god is a god who created the universe but does not intervene in THIS world. He could intervene in the next and judge us. Deism is an enlightenment and some deist philosophers in 1760's suggested that an afterlife is possible.

Fine Tuning

On the fine tuning proving God

I am not sure Con has read the argument with much thought. I disproved necessity by scientific evidence showing the constants could be different and showing that they are way too unlikely to happen. This inevitably proves that they were designed that way by a deliberate concious cosmic designer mind which we call God. Chance as I said before is less likely than blindfolding a man in a room with ALL the atoms in the ENTIRE universe but taking out one atom and painting green and the blindfolded man picks out the green atom out of ALL THE ATOMS IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. I am not sure Con understands the grand implications of this.

On the Multiverse

No sophisticated person should take this seriously.

A) It contradicts experimental science like the BGV theorem and the hawkings-penrose theorem which conclude that the universe has an absolute beginning. If the multiverse had a beginning, it is obviously not from nothing and had to come from somewhere outside of nature and supernatural (God)

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago."

- Stephen Hawkings


B) Violation of Occam's razor : To propose an infinite amount of entities to explain the fine tuning is perposterous when one entity (God) will do the trick. Occam's razor says entities should not be multiplied unneccessarily meaning the simpler one-entity answer (God) is more likely than an infinite amount of entities (multiverse). Multiverse is of infinite complexity too since it has an infinite amount of complex universes.

C) Infinite regress : If the multiverse is past-eternal then it would have to spend an infinite amount of time in the past to get to the present meaning it would never get to the present due to literally being stuck in eternity forever (infinite regress).

D) More questions than answers. Who created the complex machine or mechanism that shoots out the universes? Who fine tuned the infinite amount of universes? Remember if the cosmological constant is not fine tuned to within 1 in 10^120, there is no universe. So now to explain the fine tuning of the universe, you have to account for fine tuning an infinite more times and account for 1 in 10^120 for infinity? So in short, if this universe is fine tuned to even exist, who fine tuned the other universes for them to even exist?

Anthropic principle

John Leslie destroys this with the firing squad analogy. Suppose you commit a felony and sentenced to death by firing squad. The commander counts 3... 2... 1... the soldiers fire and you are still alive and breathing. You wonder why the soldiers missed and you say "well, of course all the soldiers missed because I am alive since I am here to observe it." Is this satisfying explanation? Even relevant? The anthropic principle saying "well of course all the soldiers missed because I am here now" or "of course the universe is fine tuned because I am here now does not answer the question but merely reaffirms that the unlikely event happened. It offers no explanation as to WHY the fine tuning happened and it merely reaffirms that we are here now to observe this unlikely phenomenon.


On Mind's irreducibility to matter

Con asks why is mind not irreducible to matter. Had con taken the time to actually read the argument and outlined evidence, this would not be the case.

On the quote

Con goes on childishly making parodies of this quote into supposed other quotes. Con comparing it to healing stones. Except con, that no scientists reaffirms your concept, while all the scientists listed in my argument reaaffirm the argument. Nobody has made claims nor quotes about healing stones. How is it even relevant?

I am very disappointed with con's "rebuttals" thus far since they are all red herrings or the result of him not even reading my argument.


On Aquinas and Kant

Bandwagon fallacy.

On defining into existence

This exact objection is debunked in my opening arguments which proves that Con did not even read but rather skimmed through my arguments. Con is gradually losing coherence and exposing the weak foundations of his debating style.

On some prople proposing God is a contradiction

Con commits another bandwagon fallacy. He states that some people think God is a self-contradiction and leaves it at that. Con should have provided evidence as to why the being is self-contradictory instead of just quoting anonymous people. And the evidence should not be childish and unsophisticated like the boulder's paradox because omnipotence means ability to do the logically possible since it is said in every religion that God is a rational being that can not deny himself therefore God can not do the illogical.

Divine hideness

On unfalsifiability

Con claims that finding God is unfalsifiable but this is simply false and unevidenced. All you have to do is have an open mind and an open heart and ask him to have a relationship with you, and you will just become a happier person and you will just feel him in your heart and feel him changing your life. Just have an open mind and heart.

On the nature of atheists

Not only is Con's claim that most atheists are former religious. I disagree with him in that most atheists are the stereotypical 13 -16 year olds who think they are cool, edgy and rebellious while in fact they are just disrespectful and cause misery in their families. They might think they are intellectuals because they are smart "atheist" but most of them have just been brain-washed by whatever they hear online. I dare Con to reveal his age. If his answer is somewhere roughly around the ballpark of 13-16, he was probably brain wahsed by what he heard online.

All in all, con, the fact that some people treat their experience with God based on experiment and "prove to me you exist" rather than love and compassion should be evident as to why they never experience God.

Poor design

On extraterrestial life

Con seems to be implying that nobody else lives in this universe but he fails to realize that aliens are a possibility.

On how much free space is in the universe

Just because we occupy a small part of the uiverse does not eliminate the possibility that it was made for us. Cities and entire countries are designed to inhabit humans and most of their space is empty and unpopulated but if we were going for space efficiency then we should just all build one country inside Texas where All humans can fit in a skyrocketing population density. The universe is mostly empty for certain reasons but mainly to allow a diversity of temperatures throughout our solar system and allow the goldilock zone to exist so that the earth could exist.

On Free will

Con goes on to sight the beliefs of the Lutheran church but that is the fallacy of guilt by association.

On Miracles destroying free will

Unfortunately for the case of Jesus even doing miracles only made those who have seen it believe and those who have not seen it do not believe which proves that he did not really take away their freewill. Those who saw Jesus still had freewill to believe in him or not even though they saw him performing a miracle. But because they were rational, they figured out that the guy was who he claimed to be.

On omnipotence and the lack of need to fine tune

You are right God does not really need to fine tuned it. He does not care for himself because it is not like it will act as proof that he exists. It will act us as proof FOR US that he exists and the fine tuning argument is one of the two arguments for god made in the bible and one of the three in the Qu'ran.

On Con's Nazis argument

Con provides an irrefutable argument that I simply can not form any rebuttals too. I will have to conceede. (I am joking for those who do not get satire).

Problem of evil

Con probably conceedes this argument, does not respond to any of my rebuttals and make the exact same arguments he made in the poor design argument.

He asks what is the justification that an afterlife exists.

(1) God obviously exists and I provided a tiny little bit of the mountains of evidence there is for him and therefore I trust God when he says that an afterlife exists.

(2) This is a good series :;

(3) The soul exists because of NDE's having conciousness even though the brain is dead and some people without a brain had conciousness (Andrew Vandal) which proves that an immaterial soul exists.



Deism, as defined by Oxford dictionary is the “belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.” [emphasis added] Other definitions include God not being involved with human affairs at all.

Fine Tuning

Okay, let me go into more detail on the fine tuning argument.

The only logical explanations are chance, necessity, or design, this we agree upon. Let's say for the sake of argument that the probability of chance and necessity are close to zero. How do we know that the likelihood of design isn’t equivalent? The likelihood of design could very well be the same as chance and design or even worse. But in truth, we really have no idea, and my opponent shows this by not presenting any numbers on the likelihood of God. To compare the hypotheses of chance, necessity, and design, the probability of all potential options must be shown, otherwise you’re comparing apples and oranges.

Why couldn’t design result in a lifeless universe? To propagate at least some variants of the design hypothesis, one must assume God wanted to make life on Earth, rather than something else such as bazillions (scientifically tested number) of black holes and stars.

If we are to change the fundamental constants, why couldn’t the equations be changed as well? At that point we would have universes that we can’t even imagine, let alone work out the physics of them. We do not know enough about mathematical physics to say, and may well never. They may sound somewhat sci fi, but then again, we’d be changing the equations of the universe.. And arbitrarily dictating that only the constants may be tweaked amounts to begging the question.

The hypothetical multiverse is in fact taken seriously to some degree or another by a multitude of sophisticated people such as Hawking, Vilenkin, Carroll, Kaku, and Tyson (not the boxer that rips off people’s ears). The many worlds interpretation is one of the mainstream views in quantum mechanics, and string theory and superstring theory rely upon the idea.

However, there are skeptics of the idea, and I only said that there was the possibility. Again, as I said in my rebuttal, I am not a scientist to any degree, and I’m willing to bet that neither is my opponent. More likely than not, neither of us are well qualified enough to debate this topic to do it any justice. The same likely also applies to our knowledge of cosmology and astronomy. But my rebuttals aren’t reliant upon the existence of the multiverse.


To assert that I haven’t read/skimmed through your argument does not mean that you can ignore my rebuttals. I could easily do the same.

I honestly only mentioned the quote since I thought, if taken out context, could justify the existence of almost anything.


To merely assert I haven’t read an argument does not make it stand or fall.

One of the greatest theologians of Christianity St. Thomas Aquinas disparaged the argument. It isn’t like he was one of the famous skeptics like Russell and Kant, people who you would honestly expect to reject it as they so did. Aquinas and Gaunilo both rejected the ontological argument, and it isn’t a bandwagon fallacy to say that one of the greatest thinkers of the Christian faith thought it to be a load of rubbish. To be a bandwagon fallacy, an argument must be accepted or rejected due to most/everyone believing something. A few theologians and philosophers aren’t everyone. Russell famously described all Ontological Arguments as bad grammar, and I agree with him on the matter.

I merely cited the example to show why my opponent needs to prove that God is even possible. My opponent has failed to do so. I honestly find the limits of omnipotence and such really confusing, and I do actually know people who think God can do the logically impossible such as making a round square or a Michael Bay film without explosions.

Divine Hiddenness

Let me elaborate on the matter, for either my opponent has not understood my rebuttal, or I haven’t explained it well enough. I’ll assume the latter. Under your view that God will reveal himself to self to whoever earnestly seeks him, you’ve set up a win win scenario for yourself. If someone doesn’t experience God, it’s their fault. If they do, the problem is averted.

Not even the authors of the study came to such broad conclusions as my opponent did. According to Pew Research Center, 40% are 18-29, 37% are 30-49, and 23% are 50 or above. And if all atheists are all brainwashed, why do they score better than all other groups on general religious knowledge tests and score better than almost every other Christian group on Bible Knowledge and Christianity. It’s a sad day when it's more likely non-believers know more about your religion then you do.

I could cite example after example of those de-converted, such as the aforementioned Dillahunty, Dan Barker, and Charles Templeton. And some atheists are willing to change their mind again, otherwise, the existence of the C.S. Lewises and Lee Strobels of the world would be impossible. Compare this to those that say they that they can be ridiculed, tortured, and killed, but they will never change their mind. This is not to say all Christians are dogmatic and closed minded, but the ball is somewhat in your court.

My age has no weight on the debate, as it would one part of the whole demographic. I could too assert you have been brainwashed, but both of us know no debate is ever done right with ad hominem attacks

Poor Design

If aliens exist, the universe isn’t fine tuned just for us; it is also fine tuned for them. They may, in fact, exist (and kidnap cows), but they too would be wiped out in Heat Death.

God doesn’t need to set up a variety of different temperatures and Goldilocks zones. He’s God, he doesn’t need to worry about thermodynamics.

I cited Lutherans and Calvinists for their beliefs in predestination and such. Why is this a guilt by association fallacy? Specifically, the guilt by association fallacy is like saying John is a con artist and has black hair. Therefore, all people with black hair are con artists. I merely cited their beliefs showing that some of my opponent's own brethren in Christ disagree with him. I did not say all Christians don’t believe in free will. My opponent then goes on to ignore my other arguments against the free will theodicy, so they still stand. Many Christians believe just on avoidance of hell even without absolute proof; this was the entirety of the basis of Pascal’s Wager.

I don’t understand my opponent’s counter argument on free will and miracles, if he could elaborate, it would be much appreciated.

You mentioned fine tuning being mentioned in the Bible and the Quran, can you cite those verses? I want to mark those down.

I must conclude this round, and I now hand it off to my opponent.

Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BrettBoelkens 5 months ago
Okay, cool. Just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. Do you leave soon, or do we still have a couple days for debate?
Posted by BrettBoelkens 5 months ago
Okay, cool. Just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. Do you leave soon, or do we still have a couple days for debate?
Posted by Moelogy 5 months ago
I can still finish this debate.
Posted by BrettBoelkens 5 months ago
Does he answer prayers, perform miracles, dictate commandments, etc? Or did he just make the universe and then leave it alone?
Posted by BrettBoelkens 5 months ago
Okay, cool. Just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. Do you leave soon, or do we still have a couple days for debate?
Posted by Moelogy 5 months ago
However, the resolution at hand is "does god exist" does not matter deist or theist. The resolution is not "is what moelogy believes correct?"
Posted by Moelogy 5 months ago
The former is true
Posted by Moelogy 5 months ago
He created this world and he talks to some choosen virtuous people who dedicate their entire lives to get
to know him and have a personal experience with. Those people are called prophets and prophets record their experiences in holy books which are really just historical records and eyewitness testimony to their interactions. However, since the authors just record their experience or the experience of the culture into this historical record, it is inevitable that cultural elements like traditions of misogyny, violence, etc. and prevalent myths of anti-science like flat earth while sneak their ways into those historical records because they are widespread traditions in the culture of the writer and they were most likely the beliefs of the writer himself. That does not mean however that the central message of their experience is wrong.
Posted by BrettBoelkens 5 months ago
Does he answer prayers, perform miracles, dictate commandments, etc? Or did he just make the universe and then leave it alone?
Posted by Moelogy 5 months ago
Define intervene?
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.