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

God's existence, not proveable

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 643 times Debate No: 24190
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Depends on the level of proof you want, and how you define God. But ultimately, if you define God in any meaningful terms, or with substantial level of proof, God's existence cannot be proven.

incidentally. I believe in God's existence, but I don't claim it's definitive proof.
the act of faith -- of its very nature -- involves man's free choice libero arbitrio

everything we know has a cause. but we also have to recognize that we don't come across God phenomenon everyday, so to speak. if the first cause is God, wouldn't he required a cause too? God doesn't necessarily solve the problem.
if God can just be, the universe can just be.

Atheists often talk about how the spaghetti monster disproves God, cause we could have been formed by it. This is not analogous completely, but it makes an important point. That an intelligence made is is reasonable, that something specific like spaghetti did is random. But, it's still the point that it's arbitrary, like the spaghetti monster, to say intelligence is necessary.

Now, It does make sense say something caused us. If you see a bike rolling, that something pushed it makes sense. Ultimately this analogy does not necessarily fly either though, because a bike is specific, whereas the world is something that could have always been. (if god can alway have been, the world could always have been) we'd expect something specific to have a specific cause, but in something that's unique unto itself like existence as we know it, that isn't necessarily expected- we know bikes roling have causes cause we see it all the time it's the only thing to conclude at that level of specificity, and they're (creation v. bike) different things that could reasonably be treated different per anaysis.
So we have the spaghetti monster on the one side and the bike on the other, ha.

In broader terms, there is the argument a fortiori. if there's an unending chain of events back in time, something must have made that chian- if existance is, even if infinte, it has to be here as an effect of something.
but, as i was saying, not necessarily. If that can just be, so can God.

Some people insist there's "something" that just "has" to be. As Ronald Knox put it, you can add as many links and as large as you like to a chain, but at some point you have to have a peg to hang it on, reiterating the point of an infinite chain argument. Some people like to hang their argument on this "thing" that must just be.
it seems like this peg, or this thing that must just be regardless of existance is just extra fluff that theists use to say he must exist. cause if God an just be, existance can just be.
to say soemthing more needs to be is not necessary. ockham's razor, the simplest solution is prob right.
and even if there was oemthing more, it does't have to be God so much as the fabric of existance. it's just there and just is. that seems like part of existance to me, not soemthing separate from it. to use the metaphor, the peg is part of existance not soemthing separate from it.
and you can call it God, if it's even allowed to be argued that this just being is needed (which i don't think you can do) but that's not saying much.

now, the big bang actually helps verify the dogma of God's existence as certainty, because we stop talking about the never ending chain as much. But was there anything before the big bang? We shouldn't assume so, and if scientists are allowed to make presumptive deductions like this based on observations as a degree of proof, inductive while not deductive, the theologian should be able to too.
So, we see empiracally that there was a first cause, the big bang. if the big bang just happened as it were, is the first particles or group of particles that pushed the next ones then God? Or if it was random chance, is that God? To make God's existence mean anything, that is not God. If you define God as some abstract first cause, you're not defining him as much if it could just be a bunch of particles or random chance, or whatever.
-for example- imagine a 'primordial soup', just a bunch of things swirling around- that of it's nature just explodes producing the big bang. or some other ticking time bomb sceniario, that just is- like God can just be. or, the big bang wasn't the beginning absolutely, but really just the beginning from somewhere or sometime else considering dimensions etc.
-with a qualification. primordial soup, etc, has a sense of not being most intuitive. 'something about a ticking time bomb-ish scenario has too much inferential effect that something set it to explode'- 'even if something could just exist, like God- it's too much to expect a ticking time bomb would'--- this is a strong intuitive point for sure. and i think it does deserve respect, regardless of my thesis in this essay.
-if God can just be... then particles and those other scenarios can just be, or random chance can just occur.
So if particles etc and random chance are possible, then God's existence isn't proven. Even if we assume nothing before the big bang.

you'd just be stomping your foot saying that a first cause, ie God, can just be without a cause, cause he's the first cause and can't have a cause before him. it's like a leap of logic that's not necessarily warrnated or based on anything we've seen as humans empiracally.

definitive proof would be proving either logically that there was a first cause, beyond particles and random chance. proving that there wasn't anything before the big bang that went back on and on. as of now we just have evidence for God. like if you see a dark spot, you have evidence that it's a shadow and thus would need an object causing it, but it could also be a natural dark spot where the sun don't shine. (no i'm not saying in anyone's behind.....) i think it'd be techincally inductive proof not deductive.

same for intelligence. that there is order to hte universe doesn't prove God.
First, you're arguing that something complex, ie existance, was created by something that would be presumably even mroe complex?
where'd complexity of God come? if God complexity can just be, the universe can.
ockham's razor. The simplest solution would be the most probable.
and even if you conceive of God as nearly pure simplicity, it's still in principle if not more complex in the sense of complicated nature, existence is more complex in the sense that God is just an extra layer. again, ockham's razor.

that order could just be could mean that order just happened to occur, if we assume random chance and particles.
if you define intelligence as order then sure, but that's not saying much. you have to give the intelligence consciousness to mean anything substantial.

same with somethign complex like a watch. it's just proof, even more proof, but not exhaustive. when you look at something complex like a watch, it didn't spring up out of nowhere. it got here as an end product of earth formation, and evolution, and trial and errors and all that. if it did just spring up, you'd have something.
if life can form from elementary particles, that would eventially give rise to evolution to complexity.

but, order, to the magnitude that exists with humans etc, tends to be almost miraclous to some. i don't think it's unreasonable to argue that order is so complex as to be almost miracalous, and put it in the proof for God category. but, i think that it could have just evolved to what it is supports the no definitive proof argument. the ultimate question remains, that why would something complex require something even more complex?

high order is indicative of "irreducible complexity" see wikipedia, and so inteligent consciousness but not definitively.

"God as existance". etc a catharisis so theists can certainly claim God exists. no one would deny existance, rational people anyway. and you can call that God if you want, but it's not saying much


Very interesting. So, I think I'd like to start with an observation, that for the sake of this debate we should assume God exists. While I'm not persuaded of this myself, it seems clear if God does not exist, then it would not be possible for existence to be known. Hence, assume existence.

I think the bulk of your argument commits a status quo bias--that you assume the status quo is a reliable marker for the future. Of course, we know this often isn't the case. For example, since we assume God exists, we must also assume elements of God's religious story exist--if we were to take Judeo-Christian conceptions, we'd assume that God has furnished evidence in the past. Since evidence has occurred in the past, there's no reason it could not occur in the future. Thus, if God can provide further evidence of existence, there's no reason existence could never be known.

This goes to the semantics of the debate topic, that God could never be provable. The flaw here, is that God can prove God. It might be unlikely, but it's not impossible.
Debate Round No. 1


dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.


Hmm. I suppose I'll extend everything through. It might be difficult to prove God's existence, but if God exists, it's theoretically possible God could prove its own existence.
Debate Round No. 2


dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.



God proves existence, therefore existence provable, therefore please vote Con. Thank you for your attention.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 4 years ago
"dairygirl4u2c has forfeited round #3.

Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options."

some technical error
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments and Conduct to Con for Pro's forfeit.