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

God most likely does NOT exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 11/23/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 774 times Debate No: 41093
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)




I simply do NOT hold the belief that a monotheistic, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God exists until proportional evidence is presented. For instance, there is a box. We haven't opened the box yet. So we have no sufficient justification to prove the claim that it contains anything.

1) Presentations
2) Rebuttals

He definitely exists in the faith of individuals, though.

Nonetheless, it is possible. It is just most unlikely.

1) "Christians believe their God is omniscient and knows everything, including everything that has happened and will happen, as well as every thought your mind creates before you think it. If that's the case, there is no "free will.""

2) "They also believe their God is omnipotent, and can do anything. Problem is, if their God can do anything but doesn't lift a finger to stop all the disasters, massacres and wars that have happened, are happening now and will happen in the future, their God is also a psychopath who enjoys watching our misery."

I have derived these from my Atheist friend. He is no longer a Deist (Belief in a God who does not intervene).


hi there, I accept, thank-you for challenging.

lets get right with it.

hi there, thank-you for excepting! Let's begin...
I shall present my case in a few main arguments. the respond to your points.

Argument 1 Rationality
What comes from nothing? nothing of course. God is the source of energy and matter. without God is to say something came from nothing. It is a logical fallacy. 0=0 you have to have God in the equation.

But let us assume something can come from nothing. wouldn't God not exist then? no. Because even If something could come from nothing it would be chaotic. If everything exploded from nothing it would be chaos. Instead what we see around us is extreme order. the laws of physics, the complexity of life. (even the simplest ones!) Order cannot come from chaos.
summing up this point, basically rationality tells us that a Creator exists.

Argument 2 Morals
this world has a problem. Where did we get these standards? if everything is relative, then nothing is absolute. Reason can not exist. Truth can not exist. Good and evil can't exist. Not absolute standard can exist. there are no morals according to the atheist, they do not exist. However the DO exist. Also to say they do not is scary. That means you can do or say anything without having any standard to judge. That means that anything done in history, whether evil or not can not be judged. It was relative? No!

Argument 3 Meaning

Without a God, there is no meaning to life. However if there is not meaning, then love is meaningless, truth is meaningless, everything is meaningless. Life is meaningless. Thus it has not value!

Argument 4 Civilization
Without a God, life is meaningless and thus has no value. If life is relative then life has no absolute value. Thus there are no basis for freedom. Freedom only comes when one has set the principle of absolute rights. Our own declaration of independence confirms this when it says " "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Great examples of governments rejecting God are Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. They rejected God and had no basis for individual rights, thus they started some of the most horrible things in history. They did not believe in a God and thus we see the results. Lets not forget.

Now I shall respond to your points.
Response 1 God is omnipotent
Your argument states that because God knows everything thus we do not have free will. However God knows what we choose in advance. God doesn't force us. Let's say I know what your response will be. Just because I know what you will say doesn't mean you will no longer have free will! If know what you will respond with, I know what Your Free WIll will choose to respond with! That doesn't mean that you don't have freewill, but rather i know what you will choose. Act 7:42 says "Then God turned, and Gave Them UP to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness?" Obviously God gave them up to there own free will even though He knew they would thousands of years before.

Response 2 God is omnipotent 2
Your argument goes that God is either non existent or a maniac. Well I a response and a counter response.
To answer your question, is God a maniac? no. Think about it, if there are so many tooth problems in the world, I don't believe in dentists! what rubbish! It isn't the dentist's fault they will not come to him! It is the same way with God. He gave us over to our sin because we chose it. Now unless we turn to Him, how do we expect Him to help us? We left Him, and now we are reaping the consequences.

counter response.
Your point was that God was cruel and a maniac. Well we know He's not, but also, where did you get those standard of right and wrong. You look at the evil and say "No! wrong, how could a loving God allow this?" Well, Where did you get those standards of right and wrong? if there is no God, then there is no basis for to say that was cruel or mean. If everything is relative, you have no standards!

you see to not believe in a God, is to contradict the very way you hope to disprove Him. You may have all the reason in the world, all the evidence, but if there is no God, your logic is relative and thus I have absolutely no basis to accept it. I think C.S.Lewis summed up my arguments when he said "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else by it. "

I look forward to your responses, God bless!
Debate Round No. 1



Argument 1: Rationality

"What comes from nothing? Nothing of course"

How about God? According to theism, God (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority who was "already there"; the supreme being. So, logically speaking, matter can be a physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit; (in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, esp. as distinct from energy which was "already there" and energy can be power derived from the utilization of physical or chemical resources, esp. to provide light and heat or to work machines which was "already there".

Also, if God truly did not exist, that doesn't instantly mean that the theory of a tiny, dense ball no larger than a molecule, then matter merging together and exploding, creating a never-ending Universe is confirmed. Maybe the Universe was "already there".

Argument 2: Morals

"Many people believe that without religion, the planet would descend into immoral chaos. The reality is that the majority of heinous crimes committed against people on this planet across all of recorded history had their roots on religious beliefs, but the ability to distinguish right from wrong does not require any religious beliefs. In addition, animals who are incapable of understanding our human concept of religion show clear evidence of understanding moral behavior and distinguishing between right and wrong."

Argument 3: Meaning

Yes, there is. Life is a very improbable existence of an individual human being or animal.

Response 2: God is omnipotent 2

According to theism, God is "good"

What IS good? It is that which is morally right; righteousness. We do not necessarily inherit fortune from unnecessary sufferings, grievances, etc.

Also, he is never involved with Earth's happenings and lets us suffer because we chose to sin? How so? We chose to, and yet he does not do anything about it.


lets jump right in!

Argument 1 Rationality
Alright, we agree that nothing can come from something. Good. Thus the question becomes two. If God exists, did He come into being? Second, is the universe eternal?
Let's actually start with 2. The universe is not eternal. Before Einstein many held the believe that the universe was eternal. However Albert Einstein disproved this theory completely. he performed an experiment and observed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning. Thus the universe did have a beginning. What caused it? For every effect, there has to be a cause. That is where God comes in. let's move to question 1.

God did not have a beginning. Jesus said "" . In order for every thing that has a beginning there had to be a cause that didn't have a beginning. It wasn't the universe, for it was the universe that was coming into existence, thus it had to be God. God is and always be. He is beyond time. He created it. It is hard for us to grasp that because we are finite. But God is eternal. By definition God is eternal. To be less than eternal would be not God.

Argument 2 Morals
Your argument goes like this. Religious people are worse. doesn't take a belief in God to acquire right and wrong (using the example of animals.) let's start with your first claim.
1) Religious people are the worse
Now i have to admit you have to some degree a point in this. Yes, many horrible things have been done by religious people. I have three responses.
The first is that alot of religious people that commit crimes are Muslims. I am not trying to say they are all bad or mean. Far from it i know some that are very nice and I respect them highly. But most religious people who have committed crime are Muslim. 9/11 for instance. So it isn't quite fair to compare Christians and Muslims. it's like mixing apples and oranges.
The second is that yes some crimes in history are from Christians. But all the crimes committed by them are not to be attributed to God. For God said to "love thy enemy as thy self" and "pray for those who persecute you" clearly any fault is not found in the existence of God but in the sin of man.
my third response is that more horrible crimes have been done by atheists than all other combined. How? Take a look at ancient Rome, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany. Holocaust. If we were to tally the deaths that occurred by them it would triple if not more the number of deaths by Christians or all religious peoples. So basically this argument backfires.

2 second point does not require religion to acquire morals.
Yes it does! I have two counters.
First is that if you are an atheist everything is relative. There are NO absolutes. Why because what may see absolute to you may seem relative to me. It's a contradiction. You brought up the example of animals. Now you didn't bring any evidence for this. But even if they did do moral actions it is WHY they did moral actions. A car could stop a murder and thus commit a "moral" action but why did it do so? not for moral reasons thus it wasn't adhering to moral standards. It is the same with animals, even if they did moral actions, WHY? we don't know because no one has been well..... an animal so to speak.

The second is that, truth, physics, good, evil, and morality are LAWS. What is the first thing we know about laws? they have a giver. In order to have a law there has to be a giver of that law! Is it nature? no because nature isn't what ought to be but what is. Thus it doesn't create laws about how humans ought to act. Was it society. Just act nice? no! because than it would be relative! And truth, honesty, good, evil, are NOT relative. Good is good, evil is evil.

Argument 3 Meaning
To be honest i really didn't get your point on this one. But without God as we have established there is no meaning. Nature does not give meaning because is what is. Not what should be ought to be. Only God can give meaning.

Argument 4 Civilization
Also you didn't respond to my fourth argument. Civilization is built on individual rights. Life, liberty, ect. There has to be a giver of the law in order for there to be a law. The universal law of value to human beings only comes with a giver to them. This argument still stands as unrefuted.

Response 1
you kinda dropped this one to. God is omnipotent, basically just because God knows in advance doesn't get rid of free will. He simply knows what our free will will be.

Response 2
Your argument states that God is never involved in earth's happenings. Wrong, God is actively involved in His creation. Take for example the most amazing display of this. The Cross. God sent His Son to die for us! For our sin! God is continually working on His creation.

Your next argument was that He never ceases our sufferings. I have two responses.

the first is that if we will not come to Him in faith and repentance, how is He to help us? He died to save. Yet we choose to not accept. How can we ever expect Him to help us if we will not accept His help!
The second response is that often it is sometimes for our better good to let us go through sufferings. Sufferings will sometimes leave us broken and that is EXACTLY where God comes in. I can testify for that personally. We sometimes have to be broken in order to be made strong!

Thank-you for your time and look forward for your responses!
Debate Round No. 2


I thank my opponent for this interesting debate.


Argument 1: Rationality

"If God exists, did He come into being?"

Christians claim that God is (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes which was "already there"; a deity. So therefore, according to that, he did not come to being.

Also, according to theism, The bible declares that God is spirit and that he manifested himself in physical form through Jesus Christ.

"Second, is the universe eternal?"

Possibly. If a monotheistic, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God could be eternal, then so can the Universe.

"Albert Einstein completely disproved this theory"

If he performed an experiment and observed that the Universe was expanding, then that is rather proving the Big Bang theory "Theory of it beginning as a tiny, dense ball no larger than a molecule, then matter merging together and exploding, creating a never-ending Universe".

"And had a beginning"

Hmm.. Please provide me with it.

Also, remember that the Bible is not fully confirmed yet. No evidence proportional to that claim yet. So therefore, that quotation you provided me with that you claim Jesus said may be false.

Argument 2: Morals and Argument 3: Meaning

I sincerely apologize. My brain is currently not very flexible yet. I have to strain my brain in order to be able to comprehend. I will try to refute your arguments soon.

Response 1

I concede that the statement I constructed was illogical.

If everything to me is relative, then therefore, absolute truth doesn't exist. So therefore, no indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole (Time) exists. And therefore, future doesn't exist.

And if he exists, he knows what we choose to do in advance.


God manifested himself in Physical form through Jesus Christ. And theists claim that he is omnipotent (One having unlimited power or authority). So if he knew what HE will choose in advance, therefore, free will doesn't exist.

Response 2

Like said:

"Remember that the Bible isn't fully confirmed yet"

So therefore, he most probably does not intervene with Earth's happenings.


you are most welcome, thank-you for being respectful it is an honor to debate you.

Argument 1 Rationality
"If God exists did He come into being?"

No, my main point was that to be God means eternal, by definition of God, God is eternal. So if God exists, He is eternal and had no beginning. To say He did have a beginning is to longer make Him God. I made this point earlier and was sorta dropped. it is a contradiction in terms. You can either have God, or something that comes into existence. not both in one.

"Is the Universe Eternal?" I have four main responses.
Your argument states that Einstein proved the big bang theory and thus no God. However my point in bringing this up was not to disprove that the universe may have been small at one point, but that the universe had a beginning. Our universe as far as we know, had an absolute beginning. Cause and effect. God has to exist.

My second response is the point I brought in my first speech which was dropped. Even if some thing could come from nothing, or even if the universe seems to be eternal, there has to be a God, why because the big bang theory says the universe exploded. If it exploded how did we get the extreme precision that we have today in the universe? Only God. From chaos comes chaos. God has to exist.

My third response is kinda a counter response. Throughout this debate round we have talked about faith and its role in this universe. Well I would like to point you are making a leap of faith in putting your trust in science. Science has limitations. What if the experiment was performed wrong? What if they didn't know something? And disproved later? You are the one who has now taken a leap of faith in science. This big band theory may be consistent with some data in our time, but what in 100 yrs? You are putting your trust in shifting sand.
Whereas Christians, we have absolutes to rest upon. ie. truth, reason, morals... ect

My forth point is a point I brought earlier, even if you have all the reason, and evidence you could wish for, you will NEVER disprove God. Why do I say this? because if you step on objective reasoning to prove there is no God, you have destroyed the very reason you stand on. Without God, there is no absolute truth and reason, if everything is subjective, there is no absolute reason, thus why should I accept your reason. Your reason is relative to you, and my logic is relative to me. Thus why should I accept your reasoning?

I'm not sure which quote you are referring to. If you are referring to the quote about love your enemies, it doesn't matter if Jesus is Lord, what matters is that WAS His teachings. Peace and love. not hate.

Argument 2 and 3 I am sorry my arguments aren't the easiest to follow. :) I basically i was talking about how without God, no absolutes. But we know there are absolutes. (I shall talk abit more later on this) I brought other points too.

argument 4 was dropped. Basically without God, no basis for freedoms. We see that if we abandon these principles the result is horrible. (Nazi Germany for example) Even though religious people have committed horrible things, atheists have committed more horrible things.

Response 1

If you are an atheist, there are NO absolutes. We agree on this, as you stated time, truth, and other absolutes doesn't exist. However we know they exist. Why? I have two main reasons.

The first is the contradiction I brought up under argument 1. If no truth then you can never PROVE something. Thus you can never disprove something! Tell me, Is it true there is no truth? You see either way you go, there has to be truth. Your stuck. It's a contradiction. There has to be a God because absolutes exist.

The second is the very fact we are debating here proves truth exist. We are both adhering to an objective standard of truth. Without it, we can never prove something. This adhering to the standard of truth is what we Christians call honesty.

Your next point was that if God knows what we will do advance, there is no human free will. However, your point is a logical fallacy. Think about it, if I know what my friend will do in advance, have I destroyed your human free will? no! I simply knew what your FREE WILL would choose!

Response 2
your next point states that God if He exists doesn't intervene in life. However you dropped my response to your original point. I stated that God is still good even if He doesn't seem to intervene in our lives. You dropped my point and your new point was simply that God prob doesn't intervene in our lives. And to be honest, for this new point I have a very simple response that you may not like. How can you make the claim that God doesn't intervene or work in our lives if you refuse to believe He exists and even more, will not go to HIm in repentance? and ASK for His help? I can certainly say HE works in my life, but for you, it is a matter of faith, and you can't say He works in your life if you make those two fallacies.

As for the Bible, I admit that my example was one sided as it is what we are debating. My apologies, hopefully my first point cleared that up from a more fair stance.

Thank-you and I look forward to your responses!
Debate Round No. 3


Argument 1: Rationality

Your 1st response wouldn't be labeled as a rebuttal, but rather establishing your resolution.

"Is the Universe Eternal?"

That is irrelevant to the specific argument presented.

1) "Albert Einstein proved the big bang theory and thus no God"
(Your straw-man of my position)

As to:

2) Albert Einstein is defending the position that the Big Bang theory (A cosmological theory holding that the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent explosion of a very small agglomeration of matter of extremely high density and temperature) is "real" according to your brief presentation of his case.
(My actual position)

So therefore, your argument is indeed a straw-man, and is indeed not relevant to my particular argument.

"had an absolute beginning"

However, like I said:

"How about God? According to theism, God (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority who was "already there"; the supreme being. So, logically speaking, matter can be a physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit; (in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, esp. as distinct from energy which was "already there" and energy can be power derived from the utilization of physical or chemical resources, esp. to provide light and heat or to work machines which was "already there"."


"Also, if God truly did not exist, that doesn't instantly mean that the theory of a tiny, dense ball no larger than a molecule, then matter merging together and exploding, creating a never-ending Universe is confirmed. Maybe the Universe was "already there"."

What you also do not realize is that if you claim that something is true (esp. A God who is often conceived as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith. In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe. In deism, God is the creator (but not the sustainer) of the universe. In pantheism, God is the universe itself. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. Common among these are omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. Monotheism is the belief in the existence of one God or in the oneness of God. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent". Many notable medieval philosophers and modern philosophers have developed arguments for and against the existence of God), then therefore, the burden of proof is on YOU. It's either I concede that I lose, or I continously refute your arguments.

Argument 4: Civilization

A mediocre definition of freedom is the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. We have no desire to lose rights. Therefore, that is our basis for freedoms.

I would have to drop the rest out, for I choose my final rebuttal/presentation to be inherently superior (Not far beyond). You are freely given the moral authority and obligation to continue rebutting and presenting your case.


Hello again, hope your having a good day. But let's begin!

Your first point was that my point was irrelevant. But you dropped two of my points so i don't know which one. However they were all relevant.
1) I am responding to your 1 and 2 point. "Albert Einstein proved big bang theory and thus no God." Wrong, the big bang theory only states that at the beginning, in a flash of light and energy, everything came into existence. Now first we have to clear up my point. My point was that not necessarily that the big bang theory is wrong, merely that it demonstrated a beginning. If there was a beginning, what cause this universe to come from nothing and what cause the explosion? There has to be a God. 0=0 the only way for the universe to exist is if God created it.
your next point was that perhaps the universe was already there? No! the big bang theory explained that there was nothing. But even if the universe was there how did we get the precision and accuracy in the universe we have?
You also said, if God exists, where did He come from. And as i refuted in my last speech, you have contradicted yourself, God by definition is eternal. To say He had to be created is to make Him less than God. This point was dropped.

2) my second point you again dropped. Even if the universe did come from nothing and exploded. how did we get the extreme precision we have today? Only answer is God. You dropped this again.

3) My third point was that no God= no reason. Thus you can never refute God. Again dropped.

4) my fourth point was that science changes and you are on shifting ground. Science can never prove something. also dropped...

Your next point was basically saying that i have the burden of proof. And that you must either concede or continuously refute my arguments. I have three responses.
1) the burden of proof is shared. Both of us have made claims. God either exists or doesn't. We both have a responsibility to prove. You see, if you just refute my arguments then we are back at square 1. does God exist or doesn't He? Lack of evidence and logic on my side does not mean no God. Merely i haven't proved He exists. He might? But you still have your burden of proof to show He doesn't.
2) You have dropped most of my argument. I don't wish to sound arrogant or rude, but as you yourself said, point 2 and 3 have been dropped. also you dropped my 2, 3, and 4, point under argument 1 about the universe. So even if the burden of proof was completely on me, you have fulfilled your role.
3) You have brought 2 of these arguments from philosophers. And i have refuted them. Free will, and God's goodness for example. As i see, you have as now, dropped them.

Argument 4
Your definition. "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint" this definition is completely wrong. If freedom meant the will to act without restraint, then freedom wouldn't mean freedom, rather anarchy. If there were absolutely no restrictions on freedom, then freedom wouldn't be freedom. Freedom in it's purest form has to include limitations.

Your next point was that our choice to not lose our right is our basis for freedoms. However you dropped my point. Where did we get those rights from? Only God. If man granted them then it would be relative. God is the granter of those rights. Without Him no basis for freedom.

You concluded that you dropped my argument 2 and 3. However you have dropped one of the most essential proofs of God. What is the first thing we know about laws, there has to be a law Giver. Namely God. Thus you have concede that there is logical evidence for God's existence. My opponent, God exists, you have conceded to many of my points, will you base your eternity in the shifting realm of science? If i am wrong, i have nothing to lose. God is a God of love and excepts anyone, it is your choice to accept Him or refuse Him, but He is just and in judgement day, can not be unjust. The only way for Him to be just and loving is if you accept Him. Not acknowledged Him, but accept. You may think i am crazy and am trying to cheat and win by trying to talk you out of it. But i am not. Please at least accept the fact He may exist by fact and logic. From there it is for you to determine what to do with that knowledge.

I look forward to your responses.
Debate Round No. 4


1) Like said:

"1) "Albert Einstein proved the big bang theory and thus no God"
(Your straw-man of my position)

At to:

2) Albert Einstein is defending the position that the Big Bang theory (A cosmological theory holding that the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent explosion of a very small agglomeration of matter of extremely high density and temperature) is "real" according to your brief presentation of his case.
(My actual position)"

Please comprehend. Both are different from each other.

2) Extreme precision has the following choices:

1. God tuned the constants of nature

2. If the values of the constants were very different, life would not have evolved, so physicists would not have evolved to wonder why the constants of nature are what they are. This idea has led to the postulate that we live in just one of vastly many universes, a "megaverse", the constants of nature have different values in different universes, and we happen to be lucky enough to be in a universe with the "right" values of the constants of nature. This view is called "The Weak Anthropic Princiiple." The term, "Anthropic" stands for the fact that we live in a universe where life and physicists could evolve. A fine discussion of this view is in Leonard Susskind"s The Cosmic Landscape.

3. Our one universe somehow evolved the values of its constants, and perhaps its very laws, such that the universe we live in is the only universe and is complex. I want this view to be true. For it to be true, there must be processes by which the laws and the values can both evolve. I hope to discuss this in later blogs.

3) Definitely. It was very improbable existence of an individual human being or animal. Life is meaningless (Unless, you have set a goal (esp. Expedition, Discovery, etc.)) for yourself to achieve.


1) Like said, I simply did not hold the belief that an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omscient, monotheistic God exists until evidence is presented proportional to the claim. You accepted this particular debate. So therefore, you claim that you have so.

2) Yeah. However, this is when I refrain from doing so (As other specific arguments presented remain unscathed).

3) "God's goodness"

You have never refuted this philosophical argument.

You theists conceive the supreme being who created and rules the universe and is the source to all moral authority as omnibenevolent. Yet when we occassionally choose to "sin", he does not intervene.

"Free Will"

Theists claim that:

"God made the future"
TheAmazingAtheist1, defining "God"

Therefore, in that case, free will doesn't exist.

Argument 4

It definitely could include limitations. My definition was mediocre and vague.

Man (esp. Emperor, President, etc.) do in fact grant freedom. Therefore, it is relative. They established their OWN laws of conduct for treatment equality issues and to maintain control over their land.

I am in fact accepting the possibility of God's existence. In fact, I was opposing against someone who believes that God's existence is intrinsically and scientifically impossible. I will proceed to your up-coming 2 points:

Response 1

Everything is definitely relative. Absolutes don't exist. Our life could possibly be a simulation, a false illusion, in other words, albeit a very persistent one.

According to theism, God is defined solely as a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions who created EVERYTHING. Therefore, he developed the future. Therefore, free will doesn't exist. He chose for us.

Response 2

I have come to the conclusion that spouting your religious convictions, condemning other beliefs, and forcing your belief against someone else is "wrong". You often reluctantly acknowledge a belief and present evidence proportional to your claim, and yet, it is refuted. You BELIEVE that he intervenes because of the Bible (When either he manifested himself in physical form through Jesus Christ, or he intervened throughout). I reject his existence. Therefore, I don't believe in the Bible. Therefore, I don't believe he intervenes.


Extra presentation(s):

1) If a supreme being is omnipotent, then he has the ability to put another (in certain other religions) superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity and then challenge him to an arm wrestle. Neither would beat each other. Therefore, both are not omnipotent. Therefore, God is not omnipotent.

2) If he is both omipotent and omnibenevolent (All-loving, or infinitely good, usually in reference to a deity or supernatural being, for example, 'God'. Its use is often with regards to the divine triad, whereby a deity is described to be simultaneously omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. This triad is used especially with the Christian god, Yahweh), why does he let false convictions, then afterwards death penalty imposal, etc. pass by? That does not build character. That does not strengthen and establish you as a human being. You simply pass away. Therefore, that God isn't omnibenevolent.


Alright, last round! Let's begin

Argument 1 Rationality
1) you did not refute my argument in that the universe had a beginning. Thus as this is the end, we have established the universe had a beginning. Cause and effect. 0=0 there has to be a God.
2) In this point, your argument goes that either God tuned them or we lice in many universes. I have two responses.
a) my first is that this is a new argument and does not need to be refuted.
b) my second is that even if we lived in a multi universe, the odds are the SAME. How did we get the millionth to a millionth point of gravity. Very unlikely from an explosion. Also where did they come from? You still have to have a God.

You then brought up the point that the universe perhaps evolved our values. However this is a logical fallacy, nature is what is, thus it can't produce values about what it ought to be.

3) you basically stated that life is meaning less unless goals are set. However even if this is true, the meaning and value i was talking about were the value of life itself. Outside sources can not add to the inalienable and valuable rights to man. Slavery for example, no matter what circumstance that slave is in, his life still has value and meaning. That is what i was referring to. Only this type of value can be given by a God.

4) you dropped this point. I grant you that this point doesn't prove God but merely point our the limitations of what your beliefs are built entirely upon. What if your entire life was built upon science, and 100 yrs later, the science you built your life around was proved false? What a sad waste.

Burden of Proof argument
1) I understand that it is my responsibility to prove God exists, but it is also your responsibility to prove He doesn't exist. Now i have showed at least some logic and fact that God exists, you admitted that yourself, so i have fulfilled my burden of proof. but also i would like to point something out to you, God will never be proved. He is beyond us and can never be proves 100 % , but that is where faith comes in. God will never show you Himself to prove He exists, you have to come in faith. Yes reason and logic, but ultimately faith. And as i was surprised when i first gave my life to Christ. Your faith is not illogical but logical. Please consider carefully your eternity.

2) Again, i have refuted your points and you dropped some of mine. Please consider that if a God exists, you can not expect Him to help you or forgive you unless you come to Him. It's like calling for help, how do you expect anyone to help you unless you ask.

3) "God's goodness" yes i did. I said in my first speech that just because evil exists doesn't make God "un-good" if you will.
Your right, when we sin, we sin because of our free will. God wants us to come to Him in free will, or else that wouldn't be love.
You also said that since God planned the future free will doesn't exist. However this is a logical fallacy. Consider this, say a general is planning an attack, he knows what his soldiers will choose in the heat of the moment thus he plans to do the following... We needn't bother with what he was planning. you see the point. God knew what we would choose, and He knew we would choose sin. Because we are corrupt. Thus free will does exist.
Your next point was that God doesn't intervene when we sin. Well you are contradicting yourself. You are mad at God for no free will and yet you complain when He doesn't force you. However my response is that He did intervene in the most loving way without infringing upon our free will. He sent His son to die on the Cross for my sin and yours. So in another way, He did intervene. We must come to Him in repentance. In order for Him to be just and loving, He sent His son to die. What love!

Argument 4 Civilization
No man does not grant freedom. Man is charged with Protecting freedom. Man is not the source of freedom or else it would not be relative.

If you acknowledge the fact that God may exist, why do you refuse come and actually see if He is real or not? Why don't you come in repentance and ask. He will answer. You see there will be a measure of faith. But if it is faith that you cringe at, as i pointed out you have to leap in faith farther in that science always shifts. God doesn't, no matter what we say or do, if He exists nothing will change that.

Response 1
No, everything is absolute. The very fact we are debating shows that there is an objective standard of reason and truth!
I already responded to the free will argument.

Response 2
I am not forcing my belief upon you nor is God. that is the very essence of faith. If that is your view of Christianity than i sincerely hope you come to see God for who He truly is. He wants you to come in free will. Anything short of that is not love. You also said that us Christians say God intervenes because the Bible says so. Now i acknowledged that my first point was slanted and brought up another. Namely you can't make that claim that He doesn't intervene because you will not ask for help. My other point you also dropped, even if we sometimes ask for God, He let's us suffer to make us stronger.

Please understand your view of God is wrong. He is pleading with you, (not i) to come to Him. Whether you see it or not, whether you acknowledge it or not. He is. And He is, i rejected Him myself and would not listen, but slowly as i let myself evaluate before me that could never say He didn't love me or care for me if I would't ask for Him.

Extra Presentations,
1) your first doesn't make sense, If God exists, He is the only God.
2)Basically your point is that why does God allow wrong things? and i answered this in my first speech and later you dropped it. God gave us free will and we must suffer the consequences for choosing evil. Also i would like to point out that you are contradicting yourself. You deny His existence and yet you are angry He doesn't exist!

In conclusion, I have showed many ways that God exists and has to exist. I would just like to conclude with a quote from D.K Chesterton
"But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. . . . As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. . . . The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything."
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ambassador4christ 2 years ago
thank-you my opponent for a respectful and fun debate round. God bless!
Posted by janetsanders733 2 years ago
As a worldview there is no such thing as strong or weak atheism. Atheism is simply the view that

1. There is no God.

That claim is either true or false. There is no middle ground. If you don"t think (1) is true, then you are not, by definition, an atheist.

The distinction you want to draw comes in when we consider the justification for (1).
Posted by ambassador4christ 2 years ago
@Edvin, i don't how to. sorry. I think copy and paste would be your best bet.
Posted by SubjectiveMorality 2 years ago
Take that back. There is a future (The time or a period of time following the moment of speaking or writing; time regarded as still to come) and past (Having existed or occurred in an earlier time; bygone). Time doesn't exist, though.
Posted by Edvin_321781 2 years ago
Please make a copy of this debate, for I would like to debate about how God exists.
Posted by Nzrsaa 2 years ago

Absolutely. But we need to think whether an omnibenevolent God would reveal himself to everyone. But I am inclined to believe that for us to be free creatures is 'more good' than us not being free creatures. So if we are to adopt an omnibenevolent concept of God, then it is likely that it will be hidden rather than it's existence being obvious to everyone.
Posted by SubjectiveMorality 2 years ago

""Also, how should we trust his lectures if his existence isn't fully confirmed yet?"

Through faith, mainly. We have the free-will to believe in God. If his existence was fully confirmed then everyone would beilieve in him - his existence would be there for everyone to see. We would not have free-will as such, which is central to Christian belief."


Also, if his existence is fully confirmed, it would no longer be considered "belief". It would no longer be mental reliance on or acceptance of a particular concept, which is arrived at by weighing external evidence, facts, and personal observation and experience. Rather, it would be factual.
Posted by Nzrsaa 2 years ago

"Nonetheless, he lets the tsunami cause great destruction"

Absolutely! It is merely that the alternative will have been much worse. The point is, we just don't have the knowledge to say that any particular piece of suffering is inherently evil.

"Also, how should we trust his lectures if his existence isn't fully confirmed yet?"

Through faith, mainly. We have the free-will to believe in God. If his existence was fully confirmed then everyone would beilieve in him - his existence would be there for everyone to see. We would not have free-will as such, which is central to Christian belief.
Posted by SubjectiveMorality 2 years ago

2) "a tsunami that kills 2 million may well prevent famine from overpopulation in 300 years that would have killed 20 million."

Nonetheless, he lets the tsunami cause great destruction.

My Christian friend's analogy:
"God put us into this world for a test. He wants to see if you will do good and believe in him. If so, you will be accepted to heaven. If not, you will be rejected and will ROT IN HELL!"

However, he never revealed himself. I understand that according to the bible, it declares that God is spirit and that he manifested himself in physical form through Jesus Christ. But he is conceived as an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent God. So therefore, he should be able to break that law.

Also, how should we trust his lectures if his existence isn't fully confirmed yet?
Posted by Nzrsaa 2 years ago
With the 2 points you made there pro, I really don't think they are sound.

With 1), the simple answer is that God foreknows what we will freely do in any set of circumstances. If we chose differently, God will have known differently. But at no stretch does it mean that we have no free-will or anything of that sort.

With 2), just because we think that they are evil does not mean that they actually are evil. God may well have a morally justified reason for permitting the things you listed, and we just don't know it - we are not omniscient. Moreover, The effects of one particular piece of suffering may not become clear hundreds of years from now. To give an example - a tsunami that kills 2 million may well prevent famine from overpopulation in 300 years that would have killed 20 million. In which case, God allowing the tsunami will have been morally justified. We just don't have the knowledge to make such a claim like you have.
As for when you said 'God doesn't lift a finger to stop all the disasters, massacres and wars'. How can you possibly know that? For all we know, God could have prevented millions of wars throughout history!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate had no convincing arguments because the debaters seemed to talking past each other, especially Pro who was not answering Con's points. However, Con made multiple fallacies "like no true Scotsman" so I cannot give him convincing arguments points. I feel Con had better conduct as he was trying his bes to steer the debate, and was answering Pro's questions even if incorrectly. No sources were cited by either debater and I believe grammar and spelling of both opponents are equal.