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


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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 579 times Debate No: 86890
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (0)




Do not accept this debate unless you apply in the comments first. I am looking for someone with an adequate knowledge of general science and the bible. I will be arguing that there is no morally correct, omnipotent, and omnipresent god. First round is acceptance. Second is moral correctness, and third is omnipotence/omnipresence. Fourth is rebuttals, with no new information.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


First of all, moral correctness. 'God's' name has been used to commit terrible acts, such as witch burnings, stonings, and persecution of other religious groups. Even if this was explainable by just a misunderstanding of God's will, other stories in the bible confirm God's cruelty, such as the Noah story. In this story, as you probably know, God floods the world because of sin. Think of all of the infants that were drowned. Another example is the story of the Hebrews conquering Canan. Their God tells them to kill all of the people in cities, even the women and children. How can an all powerful and morally correct God command people to do this? Also, if an all powerful and good God created the universe, why did he allow the choice of sin? If he is without sin, why make imperfect beings that will sin?


TA Arguement

Here we can observe Saint Thomas Aquinas's theory on teleologic which is the ultamate causes of objects or actions in relation to their ends. This is from the 5th of Thomas Aquinas's theories explaining the existance of God. His theory is bellow.

1. If teleology exists, then an ordering intellect exists.
2. Teleology exists.
3. Therefore, an ordering intellect exists.

Here for the first part we may see that teleos exists on the basis that there must be intentionality and this exists in the mind. Hence one can see that if teleology truely exists then there must be intellect for it to be grounded to in the end. For this I site Edward Feser who states, "Where goal-directness is associated with consciousness, as it is in us, there is no mystery. A builder builds a house, and he is able to do so because the form of the house exists in his intellect because it is instantiated in a concrete particular object. And of course, the materials that will take on that form also exist already, waiting to take it on." [1]
So ask yourself, does teleology exist? Obvious, does the heart beat and pump blood because it just happens? No, it has a valid purpose of pumping blood to keep you alive. Without teleology there would be no purpose. We can see that from everyday occurance by using this. I mean how else are we to say that a carborator needs replaced if it does not have a purpose? When we observe other things that are inorganic like the Nitrogen and Water Cycle we can see that they too have purpose and are thus teleological by nature. [2]
We can see that since all teleology has to be grounded to a singel being in the universe. It is obvious that this high being has nothing else higher than it and is thus the greatest being in the universe which it would make sense to call this said being God.

Last year scientists have actually found ripples in time and space continum. I believe that it actually helps prove the existance of God than disproves it. We can see after the Big Bang there was gravitational strips in the universe that ripped it appart in seconds. [3] We can actually see that a very very simplified version of this is in the Bible.

6. Everything that had a beginning in time has a cause.
7. The universe had a beginning in time.
8. Therefore the universe had a cause.
9. The only thing that could have caused the universe is god.
10. Therefore, god exists. [4]

For the 6th premise we have already found that is true, so let's move on to the next premise.

Now for the 7th premise Ross writes this in support.

"By definition, time is that dimension in which cause-and-effect phenomena take place. No time, no cause and effect. If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and preexistent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who god is and who or what god isn't. It tells us that the Creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe." [5]

Here we can see that there has to be an entity controlling time and something had to come before time. That the entirety of everything had another dimension and this God was in another dimension and created the universe and all the laws of physics that we are still yet to even begin to comprehend. He later to go on to further back this up by providing Biblical verses and stating that it has to be that God has another time dimension and this is one of the reasons that we do not have concrete proof of him yet as we have yet to be able to travel in other dimensions. [6]

1. Edward Feser, "Teleology: A Shopper's Guide," Philosophia Christi 12 (2010): 157
2. David S. Oderberg, "Teleology: Inorganic and Organic," in A.M. Gonz"lez (ed.), Contemporary Perspectives on Natural Law(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008): 259-79
3. (
4. (Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos (Colorado Springs: Navpress, 1995), p. 14.)
5. Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, p. 76.
6. ibid
Debate Round No. 2


Okay, this round is omnipotence and omnipresence. God cannot be omnipotent, or omnipresent, because of sin. If God cannot be in the presence of sin, how is he omnipresent? If God is omnipotent, why was sin created? If he is all powerful, why create Lucifer? If he wants to spend eternity with us, why create a method to sin? By doing so, he goes against his own set of morals. How can a perfect god create sin? How can an omnipotent and omnipresent God be constantly in the presence of sin, and do nothing to stop it? This also brings up the omnipotence paradox. It goes as such: Can God create a boulder so large that he cannot lift it? If the answer is no, then he is not truly omnipotent. If the answer is yes, then he is not omnipotent, because he cannot lift it. No one being can be truly omnipotent and omnipresent. Also, an omnipotent, omnipresent, and perfect being that is always in the presence of sin, yet does nothing to stop it, cannot be omnipotent. If he is perfect, why does he allow sin?


Contention 1: The Modal Ontological Argument

Dating as far back as the Saint Anslem, as this argument has been honnored by philosphers on every side of the spectrum. I shall be definding the version of this argument that was made popular by Alvin Plantinga. His model uses the S5 model and thus is immune to the popular arguments against that philospher Kant has made and hence making Kant's argument void. I shall also argue another point made famous by William Criag: The Argument is bellow.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. [1]

Here we can see that we can already see that on face value that it is possible that God exists. Due to this small plausability we can see that at any slight chance proves that there is a God in some reality and hence this reality. In order for Con to disprove God he must show that it is impossible in every possible circumstance. Now as we look at the premise 1 and 2 we can see that God can exist which leads me into my S5 argument.
S5: If possibly necessarily P, then necessarily P [2]

This would mean if a MGB is possible then it exists in at least one possible world. Under this model it would have to exist in all possible worlds qua maximally great especially since MG entails absolute exsistance. Since this world is part of a string of possible worlds then God has no choice, but to exist in this world. Under this, since God is the MGB then he is automatically the omnipotent being that my opponent is denying.

Anslem's OA

A statement is a priori = one can see that it is true using pure reason and given an understanding of the meanings of the words in it. We don’t need empirical evidence to know that it’s true. A priori statements seem to be true necessarily.

A statement is a posteriori = our evidence for its truth is empirical, or based on data that we receive via sense experience.

1. God, by definition, is the greatest possible being.
2. A being that does not exist in the real world is less great than a being that exists necessarily, or in all possible worlds.
3. Suppose that God (the greatest possible being) does not exist in the real world.
4. If the greatest possible being does not exist in the real world, then He is not as great as the possible being who is just like him but who does exist in the real world.
5. But the greatest possible being can’t be less great than some other possible being. To say that “the being than which none greater is possible is a being than which a greater is possible” is to say something that’s necessarily false, because self-contradictory.
6. The supposition in 3 is false. God does exist in the real world. And he exists not contingently, but necessarily, or in all possible worlds. It is impossible for God not to exist. [3]

Here we can see that Point 6 is completely true. If we had this maximumly great being of some sort we could see that even if we took him out of our universe that there would still be a Maximumly Great Being. Thus we can simplify to see that when combined with the S5 argument of the Ontoligcal argument that God is Possible in All worlds and because of this we can see that it's a posteriori for God to Exist and arguing otherwise is futile. Continuing we can see that even if God didn't exist, the continuation would still lead to an all powerful Being. No matter what occurs, there will always be an omnipotent God.

Monistic idealism.

P1 Mind is mental
P2 Nothing mental can interact with what is non-mental
C1 Nothing mind interacts with is non-mental
P3 Mind interacts with reality
C2 Reality is mental

P1: Mind is mental.

P1: IF mind is matter, THEN solipsism is impossible (exists in no possible worlds).
P2: Solipsism is possible (does exist in some possible world).
C: Mind is not matter.

Metaphysical Solipsism shows that all exists within our own minds. Though we may think there is a world out there it is all actually in our minds. [4] Thus a world has to exist within our own minds and there are several reasons why this is completely true. It makes perfect sense since it isn't prima facie impossible and thus must be accepted as a solid fact, not to mention that it is perfectably reasonable and a sound argement. If we can see that the mind was matter, then it would be impossible to exist appart from matter itself. Things that are Metaphysically impossible are not even imaginable. Can you imagine a Square Hexigon? No, such a thing is perposterous. We can thus see that Metaphysical solipsism is consitstant with Metaphysically possible. Here we have to apply the Indentity of Indiscernibles.

F(FxFy) → x=y.

This is reflected by showing that these things are distinguished by some differential, but in the case of, let's say clones for the sake of arguing, is just a replication of it's own molecules. This is centered on the basis that all things have an individualistic characteristic and in the case of God it is the existance of it's own mind and it's consciencousness that shows this. I shall give an example bellow.

There are 3 Sphere, Sphere A, B, and C
Each have the same qualities.
Each of these Spheres exist in world 1.
Sphere A exists in World 2, but Sphere B and C cannot due to their likeness characteristics. [5]

We can see that this is a logically coherrant case and thus is sound. We can also see that due to the theory of Truely Large Numbers that there is a great chance that this world is that of a Solipsism one as many studies have shown. (but that's for another debate)

P2: Seperate Substances cannot interact
I will now debunk substance and property dualism for this to be true.

Substance Dualism
This is best cleverly sumed up by the phrase "Mind over Matter" where they argue that there's escentially two distinct things: Mind and Matter. [6] Though the key question here is if the mind is seperate from matter than how does the mind and the brain interact? We would have to see in order for the consciousness and matter to interact there would have to be some sort of interaction. (See image bellow) The trap here is that since there is a linkage here we can see that there cannot be two seperate things since they would have to be interlinked. Thus the theory here is false.

Property Dualism
So you may concede to the above dualism, but then you might say, alrighty, if that is true then the mind must be a property of the brain. Though if this was true then it would lead to epiphenomenalism and that there would be no free will since everything that we do would have been created by some reaction in the Physical aspect.

Though this is completely false as this leads to an interesting contradiction of itself. Say I weigh 180 lbs (not my actual weight, but it's an example), the property of me would be 180 lbs. Now tell me, have you ever gone outside or to the zoo and seen 180lbs? No something that weighs that, but the 180 lbs by itself? Thus we can blatently see that it is an abstract that exists only as a property. It can only exist as a property of something else.

If we remember my Solipsism argument from earlier we can see that the mind can exist by itself and thus it cannot be a property like the 180 lbs as the mind isn't a property thus it wouldn't be consevable much like the 180 lbs.

P3: Mind interacts with reality.

This almost seems like it's the most obvious here, so I'll try to not spend a whole great deal of time here. We can take many examples, but let's take pain for the greatest example here. I get hit in the head with a foul ball at a baseball game. Outside of the fact that I would probably have been KO'd we can see that the mind affects what I feel. I would feel a massive amount of pain and if it was great enough then I would lose consciousness and the mind would go dormant to protect itself and me as a person.

Here we can see that since God is mental and Mentality grounds reality, then God meets all of the criteria that my opponent has set forth, thus, having no choice, but to exist.

1. Oppy, Graham (8 February 1996; substantive revision 15 July 2011). "Ontological Arguments". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
2. Marenbon, M., Medieval Philosophy: An Historical and Philosophical Introduction, Routledge, 2006, p. 128.
3. Anselm, St., Anselm's Basic Writings, translated by S.W. Deane, 2nd Ed. (La Salle, IL: Open Court Publishing Co., 1962
4. (
5. Weatherson, B., 2008, "Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Properties", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
6. (
Debate Round No. 3


Okay, fourth round. Time for rebuttals. In response to the teleology argument, which was
"6. Everything that had a beginning in time has a cause.
7. The universe had a beginning in time.
8. Therefore the universe had a cause.
9. The only thing that could have caused the universe is god.
10. Therefore, god exists. [4]"
This argument is flawed in one crucial aspect. It fails to state what the cause of God is. If the universe must have a cause, so must God.
In response to the Modal Ontological argument, which was
"1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. [1]"
This argument is flawed because if a maximally great being existed, then it would exist in every world. It would have the power to do so, or it would not be maximally great. If God does not exist in this world, then it would not exist in any world, because a maximally great being would be powerful enough to exist in every world, if such a being existed. To prove that a maximally great being does not exist in this world, I will provide the argument of locality. The argument of locality states that
1. An omnipotent God that wishes to be praised would make itself known to all people, in order to be praised.
2. In no religion has a God done so. In Christianity and Judaism, it was the Hebrews that were chosen by God.
3. Unless that God is racist, God would reveal himself to all people, not just one race.
4. Therefore, no omnipotent God has been revealed.

In order to disprove the locality argument, we would see tribes from secluded islands having the same religion as other groups of people. We would see one religion that was the same no matter the location. There is no religion that is like this, however. If a God wanted his people to know him, he would reveal himself to more than one ethnic group. Also, there is the argument of knowledge. It goes as follows.
1. An omnipotent and omniscient God would have knowledge beyond the current culture of humans.
2. Therefore, we would see a true religion that has morals beyond what the culture was at the time.

We do not see this, however. In the Christian Old Testament, and the Jewish Torah, we see human slavery, inequality of women, and brutal war techniques, with no mercy. Would a loving, omniscient God not know morals beyond that? The views expressed in the Old Testament and the Torah reflect the culture of the time. If the God was real, it would tell of better morals in its holy books than the culture of the time. Therefore, no religion accurately displays a good God, and God does not exist.


This is the final round of the debate where I am to only refute my opponent's two arguments and then things come to a close.

Round 2

My opponent brings up these terrible things that have happened, but yet none of them by God. As for the Noah story, my opponent tries to pull the Appeal to emotion and this argument must be immidiately thrown out of this debate due to the fact that it is a logical fallacy. [1] As for the assault on Caana, this was the simple acts of warfare in that time period. Modern day would see strafings and such, but that's besides the point. Technology and circumstances change. This has been seen throughout history and hence is an irrelivant argument in this debate. The last portion is simple, God gave man free will. IF we simply observe the watchmaker's argument we can see that as the watchmaker creates the watch, he sets it down and walks away no matter if it begins to work or not. It has been known that things deteroate over time and humans are no acception which completely explains and justifies this argument.

Round 3

My opponent has actually answered both of his own arguments in two conflicting questions. We can see the fact that Satan exists is once again based on free will of angels which created a sort of ying-yang mixture. As for the Rock argument we can see that God is in nature so the answer to the question is both as he is the rock, a lizard, a tree, and even you. [2] Strength and weight are subjective to other dimensions, but are relivant in this one. I have already answered the free will and MOA questions previously.

With that I have refuted all arguments that my opponent has created and with that please vote Pro!

1. (
2. (
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 7 months ago
That was a great debate, sorry I can't vote yet due to lack of debates. But t surely would have been a tough decision. GJ to both sides.
Posted by jglass841 7 months ago
No votes. That was disappointing. Thanks for a good debate.
Posted by lannan13 8 months ago
As I said before. I do not fail to impress, win or loose.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 8 months ago
Well I see that you don't believe rather strongly. However Pro just did a dang good job of proving God philosophically and I am impressed, I believe in God but he just proved it in a way I didn't even think of.

*Cheers for Pro*
Posted by PTW 8 months ago
"GOD", this word means nothing to me!, as it's existence has never, cannot and never will be proved!, and we all know why!, because it doesn't!!.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 8 months ago
Aren't the deaths and such caused by the flood kinda irrelevant? Like the infants and such were more likely saved by that flood. Remember we are talking about a time where there isn't a man alive who isn't run by pure evil. Well except Noah. A world where men would rape anyone or anything eat anyone anything, tortue for the fun of it, a world of complete and utter evil. Noah and his family were the ones of left who had good in them. Hence the flood to end the evil. It is also stated children are found innocent in the eyes of God hence when they died they would henceforth be in paradise forever onward. And God didn't make us to sin, we chose that. Your question would actually be why did God give us free will, well that would be because of love. Also he gave us everything then we betrayed. So yeah. (Just a thought)
Posted by lannan13 8 months ago
It's a double post, it's a bug on the site.

I did. TA shows that the design of everything and everything's purpose links to God. Hence all Intrinsic good can be accounted for by God, Thus God is the greatest good.

The summary of that entire argument^
Posted by jglass841 8 months ago
I do not know why that sent twice.
Posted by jglass841 8 months ago
That is a great argument, but it did not adress the moral correctness of god.
Posted by jglass841 8 months ago
That is a great argument, but it did not adress the moral correctness of god.
No votes have been placed for this debate.