The Instigator
Pro (for)
2 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
12 Points

God most likely does NOT exist (3rd Copy)

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/29/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 732 times Debate No: 41394
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)




God is evil. He created everything, and evil is everywhere. Therefore, God is evil.


Does cold exist?

Cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."

Does darkness exist?

Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Does evil exist?

Evil does not exist, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

So, my point is that your philosophical premise is flawed. You are working on the Premise of Duality.



In the view of such harmony and cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that some quote me on support for such views.

We know nothing about |God, and the world| at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. Possibly we shall know a little more than we do now. But the real nature of things, we shall never know, never.

I see a pattern, but my imagination can not picture the maker of the pattern. I see a clock, but I can not envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one.

"What extent are you influenced by Christianity?"

As a child, I received instruction in both the Bible and the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.

"Have you accepted the historical existence of Jesus?"

Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.

I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books of many different languages. A child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysteriour order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We are the universe mysteriously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.

What seperates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos.

The fanatical atheists, are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they had thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who - - in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses" - - can not hear the music of the spheres.
Debate Round No. 1


Oh, I see.

Please, present another. I concede that the "evil" argument was invalid.


Contention 1: Cause

Pro claims that the laws of conservation of matter and energy clearly state that is impossible for matter and energy to be created from nothing or destroyed into nothing, and God would have to create the universe from nothing, therefore, God is impossible. This is just a bad argument for a number of reasons:

(i) It misconstrues the first law of thermodynamics

(ii) It assumes that states of affairs describable by the first law of thermodynamics existed prior to the universe

(iii) It neglects the possibility of a zero energy universe

(iv) It does not deal specifically with an intrinsic contradiction of God


(i): The first law of thermodynamics only assumes that the total net energy of a closed system can never change[1]. Yes, it is inferred from this that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but that is not a logically necessary consequent as many definitions forget about a zero energy universe; as I will explain.

(ii): If states of affairs describable by the first law of thermodynamics begin at the same time as all the energy, then energy conservation is never violated for as long as these states of affairs where energy conservation holds exist. This idea that the creation of the universe violates energy conservation assumes that energy conservation holds prior to the universe. Why think such a thing?

(iii): Lets assume that the my opponent is correct, and that states of affairs describable by energy conservation exist explanatorily prior to the first bit of energy created. There is still a way around a violation of the first law of thermodynamics. As esteemed physicist Alexander Vilenkin explains:

"[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." - Alexander Vilenkin[2]

If you have 0 energy, you can get energy, as long as you have enough negative energy to balance it out so it always equals zero (the net energy always stays the same!). Not only is it calculated that a closed universe probably has zero total energy[3], but a flat universe has a zero total energy as well[4]. Negative energy has even been experimentally verified between two casimir plates[5].

(iv): If God exists, then conservation laws are contingent upon his will. There is nothing about them that are intrinsic to God, so there cannot be anything intrinsically contradictory about God based on an contingent law that he did not even have to create. If my opponent defends ex nihilo nihil fit, then he will have to explain why we should hold it as necessary. Many philosophers don't agree with it, like Wes Morriston[6] and Quentin Smith[7]. The idea that God is equivalent to "nonexistent" has not been justified either.

In order for Contention 1 from my opponent to stand, he must knock down all four of my objections. As it stands now, Contention 1 has been refuted sufficiently.

Contention 2: Omnipotence

My opponent is using a definition of omnipotence that nobody uses anymore:

"This notion of an all-powerful being is often claimed to be incoherent because a being who has the power to do anything would, for instance, have the power to draw a round square. However, it is absurd to suppose that any being, no matter how powerful, could draw a round square."[8] - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

All these incoherencies my opponent mentions are not a problem because Logical Omnipotence is how most philosophers view omnipotence. This started with Thomas Aquinas[9]. The idea of God thinking of something he cannot do is not incoherent at all. If God exists, he could think creating a perfectly spherical cube. Since a perfectly spherical cube illogical, and something he cannot do, then he couldn't do it. This is fine, as logical omnipotence is only defined as:

"'Y is omnipotent' means 'Y can do X' is true if and only if X is a logically consistent description of a state of affairs."[10]

As Matt Slick points out:

"God cannot do something that is a violation of his own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can't pick it up, or make something bigger than himself." - Matt Slick [11]

Therefore, the reason this contention fails is because it is based on a definition that nobody uses anymore. Theists commonly hold the omnipotence of God to entail that he can do anything logically possible. These scenarios Pro mentions are, well, logically impossible.

This omnipotence paradox contention is easy to refute.

Contention 3: Omniscience

Can God know that he knows everything? Pro claims this is circular reasoning but this remains as a bare-assertion. If God knows everything, then the fact that he knows everything is just one of those things. There doesn't seem to be anything circular about this at all. Until Pro shows that this is circular reasoning, I see no reason to accept it off of an unjustified claim.

Now, my opponent states:

"Additionally, the being might think they know everything, and could be wrong." - Pro

If there is omniscient being, he would have to know everything by definition. Thus, if he thinks he knows everything, he has to be right necessarily. This argument from my opponent is a logical absurdity.

"What is knowledge? Is it a simple fact? If so, then even if you list off everything that God knows in an infinitely long list, you could still create a second list which just adds "God knows this:" in front of everything on the first list, creating a new list of things God doesn't know just as long as the first." - Pro

You cannot create a list of things God doesn't know, because if God exists, he knows everything as he is omniscient. This argument from Pro is simply incoherent by default. Any list you can make pertaining to God's knowledge, God would know about them all; no matter how many lists were made. This just means that your first list really wasn't everything that God knows, it was just the label you gave the list (you cannot have infinity +1 anyway, you can only add to a finite number). If the first list really was everything God knows, then it would include everything you could ever potentially say on a second list making a second list logically impossible; you couldn't do it. Also, if there was an infinite amount of facts, you would never be done writing the first list. Thus, the time would never come when you write a second list because you would still be writing the first. Even if you have another person writing a list, God would know both before either of you could ever finish. It wouldn't matter how many lists there are.

This contention falls flat on its face.

Contention 4: Omniscience/ Omnipotence

Pro argues that if God knows he is going to do X, then he has to do X, because if he doesn't do X, then that means his prior knowledge of doing X was false. However, if God has to do X, then he is causally determined by his prior knowledge and doesn't have have free-will; and is not omnipotent. The problem is that the fact that he is going to do X, is what causes his knowledge of X; it his not his knowledge of him going to do X which causes him to do X. Thus, God is still free as he is not causally determined by his knowledge and omnipotent in this scenario. Also, as I said earlier with regards to the definition of omnipotence, God can only do the logically possible. Not doing X even know he knows he is going to is logically impossible because it contradicts his omniscient nature. Therefore, even if God couldn't do it, he would still be omnipotent under the definition of omnipotence being that of the definition of Logical Omnipotence.

Yet again, another contention bites the dust.


My opponent presented four contentions in an attempt to show that God is impossible; all four are fatally flawed. These arguments are outdated and no good.

The resolution has not been established.



[2] You-Tube[watch?v=_XYGo3wjdoM]







[9] Aquinas, Thomas Summa Theologica Book 1 Question 25 article 3


Debate Round No. 2



The problem with science is faith.

Have you ever took any perception with your God? No? According to empirical, stable, demonstrable protocols, science says your god doesn't exist.


Have you ever seen, touched, tasted, and/or smelled my kidney? Then according to the established laws of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, Science says my kidney doesn't exist. So how can we trust your lectures? Faith correct? Exactly.
Debate Round No. 3


... sigh

alright extend contentions please




The Failure of Atheism to Account for Existence:

As a worldview, atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is wrought with philosophical problems. One of the biggest is its lack of ability to account for our own existence.

Okay, so we exist. That's obvious. And though atheists like to tout the evolutionary flag, evolution isn't the issue here. Instead, we need to go way back and ask, where did the universe come from? You see, whatever has come into existence was caused to come into existence by something else. The universe came into existence. So, what caused it to come into existence?

When answering this question, there are only two possibilities to account for the cause of the universe: an impersonal cause and a personal cause. This is an antonymic pair that exhausts all possibilities. It is either one or the other. There is no third option. Let"s first look at the atheist option to explain the universe, an impersonal cause.

If the atheist were to say that the universe brought itself into existence, then that would be illogical since something that does not exist has no nature and with no nature, there are no attributes, and with no attributes, actions can"t be performed such as bringing itself into existence. So, that doesn"t work.

If the atheist said the universe has always existed, that doesn"t work either because that would mean the universe was infinitely old. If it is infinitely old then why hasn"t it run out of useable energy by now as the 2nd law of thermodynamics would state. Also, in order to get to the present in an infinitely old universe, an infinite amount of time would have to be crossed. But, it is impossible to cross an infinite amount of time to get to now. These problems would also mean that there could not be an infinite amount of past cycles of the universe where it expands and contracts forever. So, those explanations can"t work.

If the atheist says that matter and/or energy have somehow eternally existed before the universe, just in different forms, then the same issue of crossing an infinite amount of time to get to now would negate that idea. But, this explanation would pose yet another problem. If the necessary conditions for the cause of the universe have always existed within the pre-existent matter and energy, then the effect of the universe being formed is a necessary result of that matter and energy, and the universe would have been formed an infinitely long time ago. But this can"t work since it would mean the universe would have already run out of useable energy by now (entropy problem again), not to mention the perpetual problem of crossing an infinite amount of time to get to now. So, that explanation doesn"t work either.

Okay, so the universe, which is comprised of matter and energy, cannot be infinitely old, in its present form or any other form. So, how did it, and ultimately we get here? Atheism can"t help us here. So, let"s turn our attention to the other option: a personal cause. If there is a personal influence, which means a personal being that acted upon the universe, then we have an explanation for the cause of the universe. Let me explain.

A rock doesn't suddenly change from being a rock into say an axe head unless acted upon by something else. For matter and energy to change and form something new, they must be acted upon from the outside. So we must ask what acted upon matter and energy and caused the universe to exist?

Whatever caused the universe, existed before the universe. Since the universe had a beginning in time, and since matter and energy do not spontaneously change and arrange themselves into something new, then the best explanation for the cause of the universe is an action that was a decision.

In other words, a decision to act at a specific time in the past is the best explanation of the existence of the universe. Of course, we Christians would say this decision was made by a personal being who we call God.

You see? The atheists have nothing to offer us with the important issue of explaining how we got here. Atheism can"t answer one of the most important philosophical questions pertaining to our own existence. It is deficient and lacking and at best can offer us only ignorance and guesses.

Okay, finally, even though it isn"t necessary in this video, I"ll deal with one of the standard objections atheists have when this topic comes up. What brought God into existence?

The answer is simple. Nothing brought him into existence. He has always existed. He is the uncaused cause. Think about it. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes. It"s like having an infinite line of dominos falling one after another. If you go back infinitely in time to try and find the first domino that started it all, you"d never find it because you"d have to cross an infinite amount of time to get to it which is impossible to do. This would also mean that there you can"t have an infinite regression of causes. Furthermore, this would mean there would never be a first cause. If there is no first cause, then there can"t be a second, or a third, and so on and you wouldn"t have any of them falling at all. But since they are falling, there had to be a first cause, that itself was uncaused that started the whole thing moving at a specific time in the past. So too with the universe. It was caused to exist at a specific point in time. The uncaused cause is God, who decided to create the universe and who, as the Bible says in Psalm 90:2, "is from everlasting to everlasting."

My 2nd and 2rd arguments against God's existence wouldn't fit.
Debate Round No. 4


How about God?

If you refute this, you will persuade me to change my belief.


He definitely had no cause, for he is eternal. We came into existence. But how?


The Failure of Atheism to Account for Morality:

As a worldview, atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is wrought with philosophical problems. In this video, let's look at the inability for the atheistic worldview to offer objective morality.

First I need to clarify that atheists can be morally good. They can even be people of integrity. But that isn't the issue. Having good morals doesn"t mean you have objective morals. One atheist"s good morals might only be coincidentally consistent with true objective morality where another atheist"s isn"t.

Objective morals are those that are based outside of yourself. Subjective morals are those that depend on you, your situation, culture, and your preferences. Subjective morals change, can become contradictory, and might differ from person to person. This is the best that atheism has to offer us as a worldview.

Think about it, in atheism, there is no moral right and wrong. There is no moral "should and shouldn't". Why? Because when you remove God, you remove the standard by which objective moral truth is established. In atheism morality is up for grabs.

In an atheistic worldview, lying, cheating, and stealing are neither right or wrong. They are phenomena to which, if the atheist so decides, moral values can be assigned. Sure, the atheist might say that we all should want to help society function properly and it does not benefit society as a whole to lie, cheat, and steal. But, this is weak intellectual reasoning.

Let me put some flesh and blood on this and show you why. What if there were a global economic meltdown and social turmoil ensued so that robbing people at gunpoint to get food became common place. Robbery would then be a social norm. Would such a norm be wrong? If it is not wrong, then you affirm situational ethics and can"t complain when the situation suits somebody else"s fancy and you get robbed at gunpoint. Of course, this would lead to anarchy.

If you say such theft is wrong, then why is it wrong? If it is your opinion that it is wrong, that is nice, but opinions don"t make ethical standards. If you said it is wrong because it is wrong, you are just begging the question. Besides, that would mean there was a moral standard outside of yourself to which you must answer and that would imply a Moral Law Giver.

Anyway, some atheists maintain that the best moral system is that which brings the greatest happiness, the least amount of suffering, and the greatest freedom for as many people as possible. That is a nice sentiment, but it doesn"t work. Take a look at slavery, for example. The greatest happiness for the greatest number of people means that a minority of people should suffer in bondage. This way, the greatest amount of freedom for the majority is ensured. But if the atheist says that it is wrong to enslave a minority to benefit the majority, then why is it wrong? Because he said so? If he says it"s wrong because the minority is suffering, so what? Why is suffering wrong? It may be unpleasant. It may not be nice. But, from an atheistic worldview, why is it morally wrong to oppress a minority to benefit the majority? Atheism can"t help us here. It just isn"t up to the task of providing solid answers.

Let me reiterate by saying that atheism offers a subjective moral system that is based on human experience, human conditions, and human reason. By its very nature, such moral evaluation is relativistic, dangerous, can change, can become self contradictory, and can lead to anarchy.
True morality is not merely a collection of concepts agreed upon because it helps stop the guy with the gun from taking your food. There is something more, and the Bible offers us more.

It offers us an objective set of morals: do not lie, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, etc. These morals don"t change depending on your opinion, your situation, or your personal preferences. They are based on God"s character and since God doesn"t change, these morals don"t either. Therefore, it is always wrong to lie, to steal, to commit adultery, and to bear false witness, but not so in atheism"s empty moral vacuum because morality is formed in a subjective manner.

So, after an economic meltdown when an armed stranger is approaching you on a dark road and you are taking food home to your hungry family, who would you rather the stranger be: a Christian who believes stealing is wrong and that God is watching, or the atheist who sees a need and points his gun at you as he adapts his ethics to suit the moment?

My 3rd argument still wouldn't fit. I would have to leave that out.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by TheRealBrendan 3 years ago
Also you realize that you are debating about one God, and there are many supposed Gods. You can find people who will believe in anything, and provide you with their own form of evidence, and believe it sincerely.

Anyways, I don't know why we have to nitpick over things like scripture. It's very evident it was written by primitive men.
Posted by TheRealBrendan 3 years ago
Con you articulate yourself decently well, but there's a number of issues with what you're saying. I was reading and I wasn't compelled to respond until I got to the part about morality. Surely you can't think that the Christian God is a good example of morality. If you've read the Bible from front the back, then you're likely aware of the numerous injustices throughout it. Obviously there are good practices and lessons throughout the book, but don't you think that it becomes irrelevant when you have to decide which things to omit?

What do you think about this?
Posted by IslamAhmadiyya 3 years ago
Good fight Pro!!!

Nice job Con.
Posted by MrRepzion 3 years ago
I use the 1st. argument in 2nd round of "A God is intrinsically impossible".
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
Pro is failing from the start since his opening arguments don't even match his resolution. Proving that God is evil is not the same as proving that he does not exist.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by SeventhProfessor 3 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Despite Con's heavily flawed arguments, Pro's complete lack of arguments was worse.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 3 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceeded, and con was the only one to post an argument.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to pro for conceding, arguments to Con because Pro conceded.