The Instigator
theodebater42
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Surgeon
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

God's Existence

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 5/29/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 304 times Debate No: 114683
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

theodebater42

Pro

I think that God (as in a supreme creator/sustainer of the universe) can be logically proven to exist.
Surgeon

Con

...and I think you will struggle with that BOP and claim and will end up commiting fallacious reasoning. Good luck...
Debate Round No. 1
theodebater42

Pro

Thanks for accepting the debate. I will present one argument: a version of the argument from contingency.

First I will define what I mean by a contingent thing. Something is contingent if it depends upon something else more fundamental for its existence. For example, a computer program is contingent upon a computer for its existence. Without the computer, the program couldn't exist. Or another example, a bottle is contingent upon the matter/energy that make it up for its shape. Without the matter/energy, then the bottle could have no shape.

So here is the argument (informally presented):

1. Things are contingent upon more fundamental components of reality, until the ground of existence is reached which is not contingent upon anything, which gives existence to contingent things.
2. The ground of existence cannot be constrained/lacking in its being any way otherwise it would be contingent because further possibilities would exist outside of it.
3. Something which is not constrained/lacking in its being in any way must be spaceless, timeless, and supremely intelligent.
4. Therefore, a spaceless, timeless, supremely intelligent ground of existence must exist, which gives existence to contingent things.

Now if the argument is accepted it proves a supreme being that gives existence to everything else. This is a basic description of God (meaning supreme creator of the universe).

What objections might one make?

Objection 1. They might argue that there could be an infinite series of contingent components and that therefore the ground of existence is never reached.

Response: Things are contingent upon a component that transcends the limitations of the contingent thing itself. This transcendence would ultimately bottom out at the ground of existence. So an infinite regress is not plausible.

Objection 2: One could argue that things are in fact not contingent upon anything more fundamental.

Response: This would be implausible since if something is not the ground of existence then it is by nature contingent upon more fundamental reality.

Objection 3: One could argue that the Big Bang explains why the universe exists.

Response: That is not relevant because the argument is not about the temporal beginning of the universe, but about what gives existence at all times to contingent things.

Objection 4: One could argue that we simply are not able to understand the universe at this point, so the argument is jumping to hasty conclusions.

Response: The argument is offering what is logically plausible. If one wants to maintain complete skepticism about the ability to draw conclusions about reality, then they can, however I do not have to adopt their skepticism.

Objection 5: The argument does not prove any specific religion true.

Response: I agree. I said at the beginning that it doesn't prove a specific religion true.

Other objections could be made as well. But I will let Con respond now.
Surgeon

Con

Thank you for your courteous and thought through opening.

The concept of god fails right from the get-go. We are offered a formulation of god that states it is: "supreme creator/sustainer of the universe". This is merely a relational attribute (in this case the relationship a god has with Existence), it says nothing of what a god actually is and thus descends into meaningless god-talk. For example we could state that a man is: "the builder of cities". That says nothing to the primary attribute (of its being) or secondary attributes (of its features) of what a man is and on its own is meaningless. What we can go on to do is to state the primary attributes positively from any number of perspectives (biologically, sociologically, geographically, geologically, culturally etc etc etc). Can we do this for a god? No Theist has yet.

In Pros main argument, he has offered us an admittedly informal formulation of the argument from contingency. Traditionally this argument has failed to impress because it either leaves open the possibility that god is contingent (and thus has no explanatory power) or instead attempts to close that loophole by exempting a god from being contingent (by importing a claim that god is a necessary being). No arguments nor justification for such a claim is made, we are just left to accept this by theistic proclamation (an argument from fiat).

The Theist however claims that this is reasonable. They argue that if a god exists, by definition it must be a necessary being. Even if one were to accept this (and I do not), the Theists merely begs the question from the outset, by incorporating into their definition and premises the conclusions they ultimately want to reach. Thus in this formulation we see the exact same problem in Premise 1 "until the ground of existence is reached which is not contingent upon anything". Why is this self evidently or axiomatically true? what evidence is there for this? Other than of course the Theist desire to set up a flawed conclusion. Nothing in the formulation prevents us from equally asserting that there were many "grounds of existences", or that one or all were infact part of a time series of "grounds of existences". In other words we could equally assume that Existence itself is the result of an infinite series of events, unless (as in my opponents case) the real aim is to terminate this potential infinite regress. And how does the Theist do this? By themselves invoking an infinite, only this time it is the concept of an infinite being. Thus the Theist uses an infinite to terminate an infinite regress.

Premise 2 appears is a bare assertion fallacy. Why are we to assume that a "ground of existence", must be perfect? If it were perfect, wouldn"t that entail that it could only produce perfection (in that it is imperfect if it produces any imperfections)? If so the every concomitant contingent entity would also necessarily be perfect.

Premise 3 is a non-sequitur. There are no reasons to conclude (even if we accept the first 2 Premises), that a so called "ground of existence" is spaceless, timeless and intelligent. No reasoning is given, we are just left to assume it.

The conclusion is therefore unsound. I look forward to the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
theodebater42

Pro

Thanks for the response.

Con argues that the concept of God fails from the get-go. He argues that defining God as the creator/sustainer of the universe is like defining a human as a builder of cities. However, I do not think that this definition of a human is an inadequate definition. It is an incomplete definition. But it still tells us something about humans. It just doesn't tell us everything about humans. So likewise, defining God as the creator, does not tell us everything about God, but it does tell us something about God. We can then derive God's primary attributes by deducing features about Him that must be true from cause and effect reasoning etc.

Con then examines the argument from contingency. Con says that the argument fails for a couple of reasons, however I will respond to the objections that Con specifically makes to the version that I presented.

Con objects that it is not self evidently true that things are contingent until a ground of existence is reached. However, I do take this as evident after the nature of contingency is contemplated. Things are contingent on more fundamental components (ie. the computer and bottle analogies that I gave) and this contingency keeps going until a stopping point is reached, which I call the ground of existence. I see no problem with this being self evidently true once it is explained.

Con then objects that there could be multiple 'grounds of existence' as opposed to just one. I agree that this initially is possible. However, the ground of existence cannot have limitations/constraints. Once that is understood there is no room for more than one ground of existence since more than one ground of existence would entail that each ground of existence limits the other ground of existence. But the ground of existence must be without limit/constraint, so there can only be one ground of existence.

Con then objects that theists argue against infinite regresses, but then they claim that God is infinite (which is thereby contradictory). However, when the theist claims that God is infinite, what they mean is that is God is not limited in His being. They do not mean that God is an infinitely long set of things (and thereby an infinite regress).

Regardless, I gave a reason in the first argument as to why there cannot be an infinite regress of contingent things sustaining each other, as I said: "Things are contingent upon a component that transcends the limitations of the contingent thing itself. This transcendence would ultimately bottom out at the ground of existence. So an infinite regress is not plausible."

Con then argues that the 2nd premise of my argument is a bare assertion because no reason is given as to why the ground of existence must be without limitation/constraint (and thereby be perfect).

Yet, I explained in premise 2 that if the ground of existence is not without limitation/constrain then "it would be contingent because further possibilities would exist outside of it."

Con then objects that if the ground of existence is perfect then it should only be able to produce perfect things. However, I do not think this logically follows. To use an analogy, if a bucket has a gallon of water in it, it does not need to only be able pour out a gallon. It can pour out less than a gallon. So similarly, God does not need create only perfect things. He can create less.

Con then objects that premise 3 has no support. However, premise 3 logically follows from premise 2 (once premise 2 is unpacked). For if something is not constrained/limited then it can not be limited by space and time and therefore must be spaceless and timeless. Also, if it is not limited/constrained, then it must possess full intelligence because to lack intelligence would be a limitation/constraint.

I look forward to Con's response.
Surgeon

Con

Thanks Pro.

Well I guess you do not see the implication inherent in the argument from non-cognitivism. You have no positively identified primary attributes for the god concept, simply ascribing relational attributes to that concept tells us nothing of what a god is. Thus the term god is simply meaningless and points to nothing in reality. If we wanted to draw an analogy we could set up the concept of the Yellow Quantum Whisperer (YQW), assign to their being the relational attribute of quantum whispering and thereby use them as an explanation for Quantum effects. At this point you may ask what a YQW is? As I would about a god for the exact same reasons.

I see no reason why we must agree that there can be only one Ground of Existence (GOE). Even if one accepts that a GOE must be unlimited, there could be multiple overlapping unlimited entities.

It is not the contemplation of the nature of contingency that we should turn to first. But the Ground of Existence (GOE), Pro wishes to point to (which I take to mean the necessary being or principal sufficient reason). The point about the termination of an infinite series by invoking an infinite being leads to the same result. For instance if we are to assume that a god took a decision to create a contingent Universe, how did that infinite god cross an infinite series of mental processes to arrive at that decision. An infinite being would indeed have an infinitely long set of things to negotiate. Worse still to escape this problem the Theist may argue that in some utterly mysterious creative act (hitherto unknown) a god auto-bootstrapped into existence instantly with this plan already held in an utterly mysterious intelligent consciousness. But this leads to a worse outcome for the Theist. A necessary being with the attributes ascribed to a god would be incapable of doing anything else other than creating the Universe as it is. Thus in what sense is the Universe contingent? A necessary being creating things necessarily because they are programmed to do so. Nothing contingent about that possible world.

Pro has also missed the point about perfection. A maximally perfect being would only create perfect things, If they choose not to they would not be maximally perfect, in that it would be possible for them to be more perfect. These are not the problems for the Atheist, but Theistic confusion on the attributes (see the first point above).

Placing the GOE outside of space and time is meaningless. But let us say that it is not, what then. In what sense can it be a creative causal force? Causal creation requires an act inside of time in the effects always temporally follow causes. There are also no grounds to import the concept of intelligence into a maximally unlimited entity. A theoretical quantum field could be said to be unlimited, but what intelligence does it have? Again this is a bare assertion on Pros part.

We are left to conclude that either the Universe is not contingent as a perfect and necessary being had no choice but to create it as it is, or that it is contingent on something which in itself or as or more mysterious than an infinite series of natural events. None of this leads us to conclude that a god is a likely explanation given the terms laid out by Pro.

Lastly I would like to thank Pro for an engaging debate.
Debate Round No. 3
theodebater42

Pro

Con says: "Well I guess you do not see the implication inherent in the argument from non-cognitivism. You have no positively identified primary attributes for the god concept, simply ascribing relational attributes to that concept tells us nothing of what a god is. Thus the term god is simply meaningless and points to nothing in reality. If we wanted to draw an analogy we could set up the concept of the Yellow Quantum Whisperer (YQW), assign to their being the relational attribute of quantum whispering and thereby use them as an explanation for Quantum effects. At this point you may ask what a YQW is? As I would about a god for the exact same reasons."

Con still maintains that describing God as creator does not tell one what God is. I am not that concerned about this point. I think that the argument I presented helps identify specific things about God. So I am not concerned about debating whether or not describing God as a creator tells one what God is.

Con then says: "I see no reason why we must agree that there can be only one Ground of Existence (GOE). Even if one accepts that a GOE must be unlimited, there could be multiple overlapping unlimited entities."

There must be something which distinguishes the multiple grounds of existence from one another and that distinction would then have to be some sort of limitation, which would nullify the possibility of multiple grounds of existence.

Con then argues: "The point about the termination of an infinite series by invoking an infinite being leads to the same result. For instance if we are to assume that a god took a decision to create a contingent Universe, how did that infinite god cross an infinite series of mental processes to arrive at that decision. An infinite being would indeed have an infinitely long set of things to negotiate."

My argument is that there cannot be an infinite regress of creators because contingent things are caused by something which transcends their limitations and this would eventually bottom out at the singular ground of existence. So Con's argument seems to be more directed to a different point. Never the less, I don't see why God could not examine an infinite number of possibilities all at once. Again, there is nothing inherently impossible about an infinite, it depends upon the situation.

However, Con also argued: "Worse still to escape this problem the Theist may argue that in some utterly mysterious creative act (hitherto unknown) a god auto-bootstrapped into existence instantly with this plan already held in an utterly mysterious intelligent consciousness. But this leads to a worse outcome for the Theist. A necessary being with the attributes ascribed to a god would be incapable of doing anything else other than creating the Universe as it is. Thus in what sense is the Universe contingent? A necessary being creating things necessarily because they are programmed to do so. Nothing contingent about that possible world."

I would not say that God is mysteriously bootstrapped with a plan. Rather, from all eternity God knows everything because He necessarily possesses all knowledge. So from all eternity God knows what His plan is. Yet, Con seems to argue that this would nullify God's freedom in choosing to create.

However, I disagree because again God necessarily knows everything from His eternity. He does not need time to think about it. He is always aware of all possibilities and Has always decided what His plan will be. So the universe is not necessary, God still had to decide to create it. Yet, God decided from all eternity to create it, since He did not need time to deliberate.

Con then argues: "Pro has also missed the point about perfection. A maximally perfect being would only create perfect things, If they choose not to they would not be maximally perfect, in that it would be possible for them to be more perfect."

Con still maintains that a perfect being would only be able to create perfect things. I think that a perfect being would not be able to be unjust, but all things less than God are imperfect to some degree. I do not think it is wrong for God to create those things.

Con then argues: "Placing the GOE outside of space and time is meaningless. But let us say that it is not, what then. In what sense can it be a creative causal force? Causal creation requires an act inside of time in the effects always temporally follow causes."

I do not see what is meaningless about a being that is not limited by space and time. God causes everything from all eternity. To use an analogy, imagine a man from all time standing on a beach. From all time his foot has caused the sand to become compressed. This did not require time because the foot has always been there, yet the foot still causes the sand to compress.

Con also says: "There are also no grounds to import the concept of intelligence into a maximally unlimited entity. A theoretical quantum field could be said to be unlimited, but what intelligence does it have? Again this is a bare assertion on Pros part."

I disagree that a quantum field is truly unlimited. If it was truly unlimited then it would have the attributes that I am ascribing to God. It would be spaceless, timeless, fully intelligen, ground of existence because that is what being unlimited entails as far as I can see.

Thanks for the debate so far Con. I look forward to the next response.
Surgeon

Con

Thanks Pro.

If we do not know what a god is, how do we know that it is capable of creating the universe? Just asserting god as a creator becomes a placeholder for ignorance and not an argument.

As the GOE that Pro wants to present is utterly mysterious, poorly defined and understood, we have no reason to believe that there are not multiple GOEs of equal "unlimitation", distinguished only by some trivial non relevant equally mysterious attribute, or even equally undistinguished and unlimited. As there is inadequate definition here, there is no reason to believe that it is logically impossible. And Pro has failed to demonstrate the contrary.

On the point of infinities. This argument and Theists arguments in general directly beg this question. The basic premise is that if there is no god then, you are left with an infinite series of events. Theists then argue that this is impossible and "wink, wink" there must be a god. I am pointing out here that invoking an infinite being is a slight of hand and as such is even more mysterious than the problem it claims to solve, and that the rebuttals are false. For instance Pro claimed in an earlier response that even though god was indeed infinite that did not imply "an infinitely long set of things". But I"m afraid it does, if a god existed and was infinite, god would indeed need to span an infinitely long set of mental thoughts to arrive at a decision to create the universe.

This is crystallized in the point about enternity. One can see the religious confusion in the response. Pro is effectively saying that god existing for all eternity, decided from the beginning of eternity (even though it did not decide because there was no time in which mental processes could act - timeless being -, and even though there is no beginning to eternity). Not to forget they were always perfectly good, perfectly just, perfectly powerful, knew everything that would happen, and always wanted a relationship with humanity. But still had the option of not creating the universe, even though if they had not they would have thwarted the desires and destiny. The confusion and mental gymnastics required to believe these propositions are not insubstantial.

On the point about perfection. If a perfect god can create perfection (but chooses not to), does that not mean they lack perfection. In my mind yes, in yours not. Mine is a simple argument, anything less than perfection in the universe means god is limited or compromised in either power, autonomy, knowledge, compassion or some other attribute. Your reasoning as to why a perfect god would choose to create imperfection is "because he can". That does not seem to me to cut the logical mustard as an argument.

The analogy of a man on a beach does not work. All beaches and all men are of course within a spacetime context. The causal relationship always requires time, and all analogies to argue over simultaneous or eternal causation are deeply flawed, including the "man holding on to the branch", "the bowling ball falling on a cushion", and "the chandelier being held up by cantilever action". I"ve heard them all, and all infact require causes to proceed effects as one would expect and thus time. Otherwise the propagation of forces would be faster than the speed of light. What the Theist is infact arguing for is a new mode of causation (hitherto unknown) and completely mysterious, which may be reasonable as we are talking about the so called creation of the universe, but because it has no direct analogy it also lacks any explanatory power.

Pro does not like the Quantum Field analogy. That is probably due to what we respectively mean by unlimited. I think to Pro unlimited genuinely means unlimited in all attributes. Whereas I would argue that properties of objects are limited by there concomitant identity and can only be described as unlimited if there identity also allows for this possibility. Hence a Quantum field is unlimited spacially but does not for example even know of our existence and never will.
Debate Round No. 4
theodebater42

Pro

Con says: "If we do not know what a god is, how do we know that it is capable of creating the universe? Just asserting god as a creator becomes a placeholder for ignorance and not an argument."

We arrive at God's attributes and that He is the creator through argumentation, like what I presented. So God is mysterious, but then we define Him further through cause and effect reasoning.

Con says: "As the GOE that Pro wants to present is utterly mysterious, poorly defined and understood, we have no reason to believe that there are not multiple GOEs of equal "unlimitation", distinguished only by some trivial non relevant equally mysterious attribute, or even equally undistinguished and unlimited. As there is inadequate definition here, there is no reason to believe that it is logically impossible. And Pro has failed to demonstrate the contrary."

Things are distinguished by their limitations. 1 apple is distinguished from another apple because 1 apple lacks what the other has and so on. So it is not possible for there to be more than one ground of existence if all grounds of existence are all equally unlimited.

Con says: "On the point of infinities. This argument and Theists arguments in general directly beg this question. The basic premise is that if there is no god then, you are left with an infinite series of events. Theists then argue that this is impossible and "wink, wink" there must be a god. I am pointing out here that invoking an infinite being is a slight of hand and as such is even more mysterious than the problem it claims to solve, and that the rebuttals are false. For instance Pro claimed in an earlier response that even though god was indeed infinite that did not imply "an infinitely long set of things". But I"m afraid it does, if a god existed and was infinite, god would indeed need to span an infinitely long set of mental thoughts to arrive at a decision to create the universe."

I want to clarify that my argument is of course not discussing an infinite series of events. However, Con has argued that it is problematic that God would have an infinite number of mental thoughts because presumably God would never be able to analyze all of those thoughts.

Yet I have maintained that God examines all of His knowledge together at once. He is eternally aware of all things. He does not need time to think them over and examine them as that would itself entail ignorance since He would need to weigh and consider different options etc. God is all knowing and does not need to do this and so He does not need time.

Con says: "This is crystallized in the point about enternity. One can see the religious confusion in the response. Pro is effectively saying that god existing for all eternity, decided from the beginning of eternity (even though it did not decide because there was no time in which mental processes could act - timeless being -, and even though there is no beginning to eternity). Not to forget they were always perfectly good, perfectly just, perfectly powerful, knew everything that would happen, and always wanted a relationship with humanity. But still had the option of not creating the universe, even though if they had not they would have thwarted the desires and destiny. The confusion and mental gymnastics required to believe these propositions are not insubstantial."

Con appears to be saying that God would need time in order to consider His choices (like whether to create the universe or not) however again, God does not need time because He is all knowing. He is eternally aware of all the options etc. One only needs time to deliberate if they lack knowledge and need to discern etc. in order to make a decision.

Also, Con appears to be arguing that it would be wrong for God not to create the universe because this would thwart people's desires and that would be unjust (though I'm not sure if Con is arguing that or not). In response to that, I would say that uncreated people do not yet have desires since they are not yet created. I don't think it would be unjust for God to choose not to create people.

Con says: "On the point about perfection. If a perfect god can create perfection (but chooses not to), does that not mean they lack perfection. In my mind yes, in yours not. Mine is a simple argument, anything less than perfection in the universe means god is limited or compromised in either power, autonomy, knowledge, compassion or some other attribute. Your reasoning as to why a perfect god would choose to create imperfection is "because he can". That does not seem to me to cut the logical mustard as an argument."

Con continues to argue that God must only create perfect things. But as I argued in the last response, only God is perfect. This entails that anything that God creates would thereby be imperfect to some degree. So if God made a tree, that tree compared to God is imperfect. But what is wrong with God creating a tree? I do not see how it logically follow that God is imperfect merely by creating imperfect things. If Con is referring to the problem of suffering and why God allows suffering, then that is a separate discussion and one I would have to respond to in a separate debate since this one is coming to a close. But God merely creating things that are in some way imperfect, I do not see how that is impossible for God.

Con says: "The analogy of a man on a beach does not work. All beaches and all men are of course within a spacetime context. The causal relationship always requires time, and all analogies to argue over simultaneous or eternal causation are deeply flawed, including the "man holding on to the branch", "the bowling ball falling on a cushion", and "the chandelier being held up by cantilever action". I"ve heard them all, and all infact require causes to proceed effects as one would expect and thus time. Otherwise the propagation of forces would be faster than the speed of light. What the Theist is infact arguing for is a new mode of causation (hitherto unknown) and completely mysterious, which may be reasonable as we are talking about the so called creation of the universe, but because it has no direct analogy it also lacks any explanatory power."

Yes the man on the beach and other analogies that Con brings up are analogies. All analogies are imperfect at some level, but are still useful. The point is that it is logically coherent to conceive of something causing something else from all eternity. I don't see a problem with it.

Con says: "Pro does not like the Quantum Field analogy. That is probably due to what we respectively mean by unlimited. I think to Pro unlimited genuinely means unlimited in all attributes. Whereas I would argue that properties of objects are limited by there concomitant identity and can only be described as unlimited if there identity also allows for this possibility. Hence a Quantum field is unlimited spacially but does not for example even know of our existence and never will."

Right, by unlimited I mean unlimited in all respects. I'm not sure I understand what Con means when they say: "I would argue that properties of objects are limited by there concomitant identity and can only be described as unlimited if there identity also allows for this possibility."

So all that I can say is that when I am talking about the ground of existence being unlimited, that I mean it is unlimited in all respects, not just spatially unlimited.

In conclusion, I thank Con for the engaging discussion. Overall, I find the argument from contingency that I presented to be coherent and rationally justified. Con made a number of interesting objections, but I am not persuaded by them.

Thank you
Surgeon

Con

Firstly thank you to Pro for a polite and interesting discussion.

Of course is was always going to be unlikely that we would change each others minds, and mine remains utterly unconvinced by this argument (as with all Cosmological arguments). A seemingly plausible proposition is put forward, but as soon as you scratch beneath the surface, we find Theism retreating behind a veil of mystery. The problem is that we cannot even describe Universal origins in the precise language of Mathematics, let alone the imprecise language of English. I would see no difference between any Cosmological Argument and the flawed logic:

1) any object pushed in its direction of travel accelerates (newtonian physics)
2) a tin of beans is an object
3) a tin of beans travelling at the speed of light, when pushed accelerates
4) it is possible for a tin of beans to travel faster than the speed of light

But the argument from contingency is worse than this given the mystery and obviscation involved.

We are told that it is OK for a perfect god, to choose to create non-perfection (which would render that god less than perfect). In turn this relies on a timeless god choosing (a process in and of itself requiring time for a timeless entity).

We are told that a god is already perfect and therefore has no possiblity of failing to create the Universe for us. What option does this entity have? what choices can it make in order that humans arise? If that entity chooses not to create this exact universe, how can it be perfectly loving? If it had no choice to create the Universe as it is, then in what sense is the Universe contingent anyway (ie if a god is necessary, this Universe must follow axiomatically and also be necessary)?

We are told that a timeless god creates via cause and effect again requiring time. That an infinite and timeless god can cross and infinite series of mental thoughts by considering them all at once after self bootstrapping.

All of the above is so utterly far from human experience and the common usage of these words, that it renders them meaningless to use in a logical syllogism. Added to this we are faced with question begging on what a GOE is, bare assertions on the attributes of said entity and we are left with a less than convincing argument, which even most modern Theists reject (see Peter van Inwagens refutation on this topic).

Despite this, I would like to add that I found my opponent to not only be polite, but also thorough and thoughtful and thank him for re-visiting an interesting argument for the existence of a god. It may not be convincing but it is always worth debating.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by canis 3 weeks ago
canis
"I think that God can be logically proven to exist." Logic does not prove your dream are true..
No votes have been placed for this debate.