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

God's existence is highly unlikely

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/20/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 922 times Debate No: 36799
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




Hello, I am a fourteen year old High School student practicing for the Debate team. This debate is on a highly controversial topic discussing the existence of a deity. I thank whoever accepts this debate and wish them good luck!

I SUPPORT the topic.

Relevant Definitions:
1. God: noun A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

2. Exist: intransitive verb Have objective reality or being.
3. Unlikely: adjective Not likely to happen, be done, or be true; improbable.
4. Evidence: noun The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
5. Logic: noun Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

Debate Specifications:
This debate is attempting to solidify the probability or improbability of God's existence, contingent on a logical argument advocated by substantial evidence. For that reason, it would be preferable for CON to be an actual believer of a monotheistic religion in order to eliminate the use of semantic ploy and distinguish our arguments with unique perspectives (atheist vs. theist). The Burden of Proof will be on CON, as he is attempting to negate the topic; if the BOP shifts, I will further advocate my argument. I wish my opponent luck and hope for an enjoyable debate.

Debate Structure:
Round 1: Acceptance Only

Round 2: Opening Arguments (No Rebuttals)
Round 3: Rebuttals Against Opening Arguments



In 2011, the Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded for the discovery a decade earlier (1999) that our universe has a positive cosmological constant.

In 2003, it has been proven by Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin (foremost authorities in modern cosmology) that any universe that has a positive cosmological constant has a fixed space-time boundary and therefore has a temporal beginning. If the same universe is part of a multiverse, the multiverse consequentially also has a temporal beginning.

A temporal beginning implies a cause, and this debate therefore is not about whether the universe has a cause but rather, what is the nature of that cause?

Scientific Criteria of Proof

To prove that God exists, I need to show that the cause of the universe exhibited consciousness and it is that consciousness that willed the existence of the universe. It may not necessarily possess all traits that are part of the baggage of religion but to meet the criteria of evidence, I must be consistently scientific and there is nothing scientific about many religious claims.

The existence of God is not a claim unique to Religion. It is shared by many cultures and is manifested in Philosophy even when divorced from Religion.

If God exists, it would have existed at least 14 Billion years ago and therefore pre-date civilization and religion.

It is therefore futile to discredit the proof of existence based on the ad-hoc claims of religion.

What is most likely true are that many religion and what people claim in their free time is wrong and God has nothing to do with them.

So I hope this debate is not about Religion.

Definition of God

But by being the cause of the universe and with the ability to realize reality, God must be extremely powerful (omnipotent) and as the source of physical and moral laws, it must be omniscient or possess great understanding those laws. If its existence is established, it follows automatically that it established our very existence, our intellect and capacity for free-will and must be worthy of our admiration and worship.

Even by allowing the existence of Evil, God remains logically consistent. And consistent with the grant of free will, God has to refrain from interference with our thoughts and actions including the ability to conceive evil and to act upon them.

The act of making these choices and the moral growth that comes with it cannot be realized if evil
does not exist.

Therefore, it is thru God’s benevolent nature that humanity is free and by allowing evil and suffering, fashioned us to evolve with firm and complete moral ascendancy rather than become blissful puppets with empty souls.

If God exists, it realized a reality where its inhabitants were made free but guided towards moral growth. God therefore, is Divine.

Consistent with the inflationary nature of the universe, Space-and-time were created during the big-bang by the energy that permeated the quantum vacuum. If God exists, the energy is not separate from God but is its physical manifestation.

Therefore, God is time-less and space-less, and due to the thermodynamic nature of energy (cannot be created), God is non-contingent and necessary.

The argument that something can “create” God must also show how you can “create” energy and violate its thermodynamic nature, and therefore is invalid.

This debate is about existence, not about ad-hoc definitions

I have demonstrated in the previous section that God sufficiently satisfies the definition of PRO.

So I hope this debate will remain true to the spirit of the motion – proof of the existence of God rather than debate about definitions.

Modern atheists are notorious for coming up with their own interpretation for these definitions and debunk God’s existence by showing that God failed to fulfil their interpretation.

One notorious example is if God is powerful, it should be able to create a circle which is also a square. It comes with other variants like the powerful sword and impenetrable shield.

A circle is a collection of points equidistant to another point and a square is formed using parallel lines. Circles and square are labels to designate different shapes, and by definition, are different.

Do you see where this is going? And so please, let’s keep this debate intelligible.

Having said that, I accept and let an epic debate battle begin!!!

Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting this debate, I will now present my opening arguments.

Argument Exposition: The foundation of my argument coincides with the popular atheist notion that there is no substantial evidence to advocate any characteristics, the existence, or the presence of a God. This contention will be further elucidated by various assessments that both support this case and attack those common to the theist. The Burden of Proof is on all theists to scientifically prove the likelihood of God’s existence using logic and substantial evidence that follow the criteria of scientific theory.

For a theory to be considered scientific, it is expected to be: (1)
1. Consistent (internally and externally)
2. Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities, explanations)
3. Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
4. Empirically testable and falsifiable
5. Based upon controlled, repeated experiments
6. Correctable and dynamic (changes are made with new data)
7. Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have done and more)
8. Tentative (admits that it might not be correct, does not assert certainty)


Religion is man-made

The Bible, Tanakh, and the Al-Qur’an are all man-made scriptures manifesting artificial qualities and characteristics of a God whose existence is dependent solely on faith. God’s attributes were appointed by men whose perspective was void of scientific knowledge, resulting purely in an unsubstantiated conjecture that was appropriate for the time period. The fact that religion’s foundation is synthetic and scientifically unjustified further protests the validity of God’s existence, and almost guarantees its artifice. Faith was the only method of establishment during this primitive and rudimentary era.

However, there is still no objectified explanation for why humans would embrace a concept that has no evidence supporting its validity. In an article he published in the L.A. Times, J. Anderson Thompson, M.D., suggested:

“. . . we are born with a powerful need for attachment, identified as long ago as the 1940s by psychiatrist John Bowlby and expanded on by psychologist Mary Ainsworth. Individual survival was enhanced by protectors, beginning with our mothers. Attachment is reinforced physiologically through brain chemistry, and we evolved and retain neural networks completely dedicated to it. We easily expand that inborn need for protectors to authority figures of any sort, including religious leaders and, more saliently, gods. God becomes a super parent, able to protect us and care for us even when our more corporeal support systems disappear, through death or distance.” (2)

God is only an object of psychological attachment, a figure of our imagination that provides emotional security in times of need. Both God and religion are consequences of neural psychology and composition; elements of cognitive belief that enable humans to work effectively in small groups and restrain human instinct. Belief in God is a form of mental self-preservation for those who are indoctrinated by a religious childhood or religious influence. God exists only in our minds.

God is a psychological mechanism that acts as an object of attachment and psychological self-preservation; it exists only mentally, not physically or metaphysically.

Evolution surpasses Intelligent Design

Biological evolution and abiogenesis are two scientifically reinforced theories that respectably predict how life may have begun and how a species develops over time. Intelligent Design, however, is a religious assertion that all life was created by an Intelligent Being, such as God. Not only does this unjustified belief defy methodological naturalism, it fails to follow procedures of scientific discourse. Because it lacks empirical support, offers no tenable hypotheses, and attempts to relate the origin of life and natural history with scientifically unverified supernatural causes, Intelligent Design can only be considered a pseudoscience, and is not in any way substantial evidence for the existence of God, nor is it a reputable scientific theory.

Biological Evolution: The change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. (3)
Abiogenesis: A natural process by which life arises from simple organic compounds. (4)

These two scientific disciplines are the most consistent, effective, and empirically testable theories concerning the origin and development of life, unlike Intelligent Design. Although no theory or belief, despite scientific justification, can be truly disproved, Intelligent Design is the most unlikely of all theories.

Intelligent Design is not a valid scientific or logical argument for the existence of God.

The Omnibenevolent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnipotent God does not exist

First and foremost, it is important to address the logical integrity of God’s “omnibenevolence.” All monotheistic religions credit God with being infinitely good, all-loving, and supreme, yet evil still exists within society. If God is omnibenevolent and omnipresent, evil should not exist whatsoever.

Evil is logically incompatible with God’s attributes, thus God cannot be omnibenevolent.

However, a theist may argue the following:

1. An aspect of morality is observed.
2. Belief in God is a better explanation for this morality than any alternative.
3. Belief in God is thus preferable to disbelief in God.

I would argue that morality is relative to the society around it, and is thus not objective. It is impossible to distinguish between good and bad because each individual perception of it is unique. For example, one may believe that murder is bad, and another may think otherwise. Thus, all humans are both evil and moral, and the choices dependent on these traits are relative to one’s own free will, not the supposed omnibenevolence or omnipresence of God.

Morality is not universal, it is relative to individual perception; thus, God cannot be omnipresent.

Addressing God’s “omniscience” with the use of empirical logic suggests:

1. God is omniscient.
2. God has a free will.
3. Entities with free will have non-determinate futures.
4. Omniscience entails foreknowledge.
5. If an entity knows the future, the future is not non-determinate.
6. From 3, 5: Hence, there are no omniscient epistemic agents who have free will.
7. Hence, God is not omniscient and/or God does not have free will.

An Omniscient God does not exist due to contradictory attributes.

The validity of God being “omnipotent” is not as susceptible to scientific scrutiny as it is to a logical paradox. The Omnipotence Paradox states: “If a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task it is unable to perform, and hence, it cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if it cannot create a task it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do.” (5) Thus, an Omnipotent entity cannot exist.

An Omnipotent God does not exist because it is paradoxical.

Creationism is scientifically unsupported

Creationists have a very opaque and naive understanding of natural selection, contesting that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of God, without strict scrutiny or acknowledgment of modern scientific disciplines and theories. My argument, “Evolution surpasses Intelligent Design,” has already established that natural selection is most likely responsible for the creation of life, but the question regarding the origin of the universe (and Earth as a result of the universe’s existence) is still open for discussion. The most common argument for theism is the “Cosmological Argument,” which states:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Thus, the universe had a cause.

Although sequentially these three points may be true, but the certainty of the third point is still debatable. “The Big Bang Theory” is the most prevalent astrological theory to date, but is commonly perceived to be paradoxical. If the Big Bang Theory caused the universe, what caused the Big Bang? According to modern scientific theory, the universe may have had an “uncaused cause.” For example, spontaneous quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space, arising from Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle (6). The foundation of this principle states:

ΔEΔt ≈ h/2π

Meaning, that conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only for small times. This scientifically reinforces the notion that “something can be created from nothing,” which could subsequently lead to the Big Bang.

Creationism fails to recognize modern scientific theory, which ultimately remonstrates any conception of God’s involvement in the creation of the universe.

Another inconsistency in this “proof of God” is the committal of logical fallacy, known as “infinite regression.” If the universe had a first cause, what caused the first cause? Or, if God created everything what created God? If God is of purely metaphysical properties, then quantum fluctuations or any other scientific explanations do not apply to God.

God’s existence commits multiple logical fallacies, including infinite regression.


Apologies to JGHOSTBOY but I am conceding defeat (cowardly) for this debate.

It is a great debate motion and it is unfortunate I have to ruin this for my opponent and the readers.

I recommend he re-start the debate by creating a new thread and hope that someone more worthy of an opponent would accept the challenge!

I have recentlu become a father and my wife smacked me in the face for spending too much time debating online and playing online games!!!!
Debate Round No. 2


DT forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by DT 3 years ago
I'm not making an opening argument.

The PRO is given the opportunity to define the motion but since I have burden of proof, it is only appropriate that I do the same ;)

I hope I'm not denied that privilege ;)
Posted by mrsatan 3 years ago
You're welcome. And most certainly, his acceptance includes the BoP as you stated it.
Posted by JGHOSTBOY 3 years ago

Thank you for the insight, and I believe you are correct. However, when sahidul accepted this debate he also accepted the Burden of Proof, as specified in the opening statement. It is also highly likely that he would forfeit as it has taken him 25 hours to submit the words "I accept."
Posted by mrsatan 3 years ago
It is not up to anyone to disprove any claim. One opposed to a claim need only disprove the proof that is offered for the claim.

The theist always has some share of the BoP, as they are always claiming a God exists. For the atheist, it depends. If it's simply disbelief, a lack of belief, such as a claim that "there is no reason to believe God exists", they have no BoP. However, the claim that "God is unlikely to exist" is no longer a lack of belief. It is an active belief of non-existence, in which case they must take on a share of the BoP as well.
Posted by JGHOSTBOY 3 years ago

Although, the Burden of Proof is generally, like you said, lies with the individual making the claim, it is up to the Theist to disprove the popular atheist notion that "God is unlikely to exist." However, I am willing to submit my proof first, if it is in sahidul's interests.
Posted by mrsatan 3 years ago
Shared BoP in a case such as this is acceptable, although you're opening clearly puts it on Con. However, in most cases, it does not matter what either sides views are. BoP generally lies with the person making the claim. It is upon them to prove their assertion is true.
Posted by JGHOSTBOY 3 years ago

As a reminder, the first round is acceptance only, not opening arguments. Please refer to the "Debate Structure" for further clarification.
Posted by JGHOSTBOY 3 years ago

Although the Burden of Proof is commonly affiliated with the theist, as it is their obligation to provide cogent arguments against the resolution, in this case it can be interpreted as a shared Burden of Proof, simply to distinguish opposite perspectives.
Posted by mrsatan 3 years ago
BoP should be on you, as you are the one making the claim.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: concession