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

God probably 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/26/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 599 times Debate No: 55441
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)




Hey everyone
1st round is for acceptance.
The burden of proof is shared; I have to show that God probably exists, and Con needs to show that God probably doesn't exist.
"God" is the God of Classical Theism.
Good luck and God Bless


Hello, I think god doesn't exist because there is no physical evidence of him existing and the laws of physics also won't allow a god to exist.

For example
The law of conservation of energy: It is impossible to destroy or create energy or matter (you can convert them in each other)

This law would be broken if there was a god who creates animals people lightning etc. Because he has to get that matter from somewhere and he can't pick the matter from another planet or something because that would go against the law of conservation of information which basically means that if you knew everything about the universe you could trace things back and know acct what happened in the past even to the big bang.

And in case you say the big bang also doesn't work with these laws you're wrong because at the same moment all the energy and gas to make the stars and planets was created there were also alt of negative forces created for example gravity and these positive and negative forces can cancel each other out so creating a universe is basically for free.

I'm sorry for my grammar I don't live in a country where they speak english.
Debate Round No. 1


Hey Con

The point you make is that the law of the conservation of energy means that God couldn't create the universe per se.
However, I think this is wrong on two counts: firstly, I misunderstands the first law of thermodynamics, and secondly, it misunderstands the concept of God.
This is because the conservation of matter and energy only applies to a closed system. [1] Were God to create matter or energy, it would by definition not be in an isolated system; for it is creating the isolated system, not acting within it. In other words, the law of conservation only applies to matter or energy having been created, not applying to matter or energy being created in itself.
Moreover, it is important to consider that the nature of God makes the objection redundant. God is transcendent to the natural world. [2] Natural laws do not apply to him nor his actions. As such, the law of the conservation cannot apply to him nor his actions either, so can act without contradicting natural laws.
Regardless, even if the notion is true, it still does not impact on the existence of God. There is no reason to think that the God of classical theism couldn't be a sort of Aristotelian Prime Mover, causing the universe to exist from pre-existent material like an artist, rather than creating ex nihilo - in which case, God can certainly exist without impacting on the laws of thermodynamics.

My argument
My argument is as follows:

1) Everything which exists must have a prior efficient cause of its existence
2) An infinite regression of efficient causes is impossible
3) In order to explain why anything at all exists, there must therefore be an uncaused, first cause, which we call 'God'.
(With "efficient cause" being: "the agent that brings something into being" [4])

Defence of 1)
Premise 1 is evident due to both inductive reasoning and logical impossibility of the opposite. Inductive reasoning shows that every observed, existing being has an efficient cause to its being. Nothing in the history of observance has come into being without an efficient cause - so, it is only rational to conclude the truth of the premise. This is also logically true, because of 2 reasons. Firstly, ex nihilo nihil fit - out of nothing, nothing comes. If there is nothing to be the efficient cause of a being, then nothing can come into being, either. If there is no cause, then there is no effect. Secondly, if the efficient cause of a being were itself, then it would have to exist prior to itself, which is a logical impossibility. Therefore, everything has an efficient cause to its being that is not itself.

Defence of 2)
The reason why an infinite regress of causes is impossible is due to how it cannot be traversed, or actualized. To give an analogy, if you were to travel to an infinitely distant point in space, it wouldn't just take them a long time to get there - the reality is, you would never get there, as no matter how long you have been travelling for, an infinite part of the journey would still remain. You would never arrive at the destination. So, infinity, in a series of events at least, cannot exist. The same is therefore with causes; as you could never explain anything, as an infinite amount of causes have to be explained. We must therefore arrive at an uncaused, first cause that needs no further explanation.

Defence of 3)
God's existence must follow from 1) and 2). Because if everything which exists has an efficient cause, and there is also no infinite regress of causes, then there must be an uncaused first cause which is the cause of everything else. This has to exist if anything is to be explained. This is equivalent to God as the creator and sustainer of the universe.

Over to you Con



hello i never looked at it this way youve convinced me to rethink everything

thank you
Debate Round No. 2


No problem, see you around.


mick1009 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Extend arguments


mick1009 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Cosmos has always existed, universes exist due to instabilities in the pre-existing, uncaused Cosmos which is infinite and has evidently existed as have infinite numbers of universes.
Destroying Pro's Premise 1.
Thus destroying Pro's entire argument/reasoning.

Reasoning cannot define facts, because reasoning is a subjective act, it does not define Objectivity.

Universes are a small subset of the universal Set of the Cosmos.
Posted by Jjjohn 2 years ago
a sloppy rebuttal to Mussab:

"Where is the physical proof that your great great great great great great great grandfather existed?:
The DNA that we can trace back to our ancestors.

"Prove to me by physical proof that consciousness exists."
Brain scans show the electrical activity in a brain that is conscious and the lack of same in one that is dead.

there is your physical proof.
Posted by Jjjohn 2 years ago
Pro has a weak case.

"We must therefore arrive at an uncaused, first cause that needs no further explanation."

Your argument assumes the laws of causality are consistent back to the first cause, i.e. the origin of the universe. Why do you think this assumption is valid without evidence? Causation implies time; for A to cause B, then A happened before B.

Before space-time existed, why would there have been time for causality to take place in?

I claim your argument rests on assumed but unproven premises, thus is logically invalid.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
For a God to create matter is magic which violates all the laws of Science.
Thus such a violation would be obvious to observers and god would be detectable.
No such detection nor magic has ever been witnessed nor discovered by scientific examination.
Not even the Big Bang was a creation of matter from nothing, it can all be explained by natural events and Black Holes.
Posted by Benshapiro 2 years ago
Give my physical proof of something non-physical? lol
Posted by Saska 2 years ago
LMGIG, you have a very warped image of atheists. I am an atheist and I didn't nothing more than shrug off your comment. To me, your God is not possible. I am not afraid of him. If it turned out that he did in fact exist, I would acknowledge him as existing but I would still refuse to worship him. If your God exists with all the power and knowledge that you and your bible claim Him to have, he is not worthy of my worship. He has the power to do anything, yet allows horrible disasters to happen to people who bother worship Him and don't worship Him. To be fully clear, if He is real, He is doing a terrible job. Luckily, I am fully certain that He is not real. If there is a god out there (which I doubt), that god is not capable of controlling and creating all things, or that god is not all-loving. Your God of contradictions is nothing more than a fairy tale and a joke to most atheists, so we don't tremble in fear at your words; we either shrug them off or just plain laugh at them.
Posted by Mussab 2 years ago
Seriously? Demanding physical proof? Where is the physical proof that your great great great great great great great grandfather existed? You can't see nor touch nor feel him. Prove to me by physical proof that consciousness exists.
As for the Laws statement. That's why God is independent from the Laws he created.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
it is impossible to create matter unless you are God. If you are God, you can create anything you want to create. You are like God in your imagination, able to create anything you wish in your imagination.....too bad you are limiited so you can't make your imaginations into reality like God can, but you are still like God in that you have powers of imagaination similar to His, and you have the ablity to make creatures like yourself (babies) as He made you like Himself. I can piture atheists faces as they read this and say "no He didn't make me, no He didn't"......a seriuosly funny face with shaky open lips and fear masking itself as strength of denial.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con bombed out even though Pro's argument is fallacious, a copy of William Lane Craig's ridiculous fallacious argument. But Con did not hang in there fighting and gave the debate to Pro by default.
Vote Placed by EliasPredko 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did a great job of convincing Con to adopt, or, at the least, suggest his belief. This is the first time I have ever seen this happen between two debaters. God bless you, Toviyah! ;)