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

Handicap Debate - God Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,760 times Debate No: 70964
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (53)
Votes (3)




*Debate is closed, leave message in comments to accept*

I am strongly of the opinion that 10,000 characters is plenty to present a decent case for virtually any position. Thus it infinitely irritates me when people claim that the debate limit is insufficient to make their case. I call this argument ad verbosium.[] To demonstrate this point, I am picking a common topic, where I will use 5x fewer characters than my opponent. While this debate is about God's existance (one of my favorite topics), the underlying purpose is regarding word economy.

Thus, I expect my opponent to use as much of his character space as possible, and give a best possible case for the existance of God, which I will attempt to refute. I recommend my opponent be as unethical as humanly possible in this debate, abusing character-wasting techniques such as Gish Gallop, etc if he so wishes. Voters should vote based normally but not deduct conduct for application of these techniques.

God - An omniscient, omnipotent, intelligent being
Exists - Is actual in objective reality

72h, 3 rounds, 10,000/2,000 characters

Round 1:
Con - Rules, Definitions
Pro - Opening arguments

Round 2:
Con - Arguments, rebuttals
Pro - Arguments, rebuttals

Round 3:
Con - Arguments, rebuttals
Pro - Rebuttals, conclusion (no new arguments)

Round 4:
Con - Rebuttals, conclusion (no new arguments)
Pro - Waives this round

Special rules regarding character limit
Pro must legimately use at least 8,000 characters per round, failing to do so will concede arguments
Con must use a maximum of 2,000 characters per round including sources, failing to do so will concede argument


I thank Envisage for challenging me as now we finially get to face off. I can't wait so let's begin.

Contention 1: 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 CriagThe 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]
We can see with this applied to the above portion of premise 1 we can see that God can exist simply with their being a possibility and the only way to negate it would be to show that there is no possible way that God can exist in any given circumstance. When we follow this string of beliefs we can see that since God can exist in other worlds he can exist in reality and thus actually exists.

Contention 2: Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (which I'll start refurring to as the KCA in order to save space) was created by William Lane Craig and is a simple theory that I have bellow.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. [3]

The first premise is true by the very laws a physics as it is a law of Conservation of Mass as it shows that Matter cannot be neither created nor destroyed. Meaning that the Universe cannot have been spontanously created as Big Bang opponent Flyod has stated. We can also see that things are not spontanous here. Like why doesn't the Earth suddenly expload? This is because the very laws of Physics binds and restrics nothingness so we can see that for one to question the first premise would be to question regualrity.
Now let us move on to the second premise here which is backed both by scientce and philosophy. Craig agrues using the Brode-Gruth-Velikum Theory that through the use of Red shift which shows that the universe is exspanding we can actually see that the universe, even if it is part of some multi-verse, still had to be created. [3] The philosophical side of this argument is that though many argue that the universe may be infinate the thing is that it is highly unlikely for things to exsist in an infinate chain and are thus had to have a starting finite point somwhere.
Now at this point you're probably asking yourself, okay Lannan that shows that the universe began at a point, but what does this have to do with God? This is that there is nothing known prior to the creation of the universe meaning that it since there is no determining factors to what happened before we must assume that it's personal and uncaused. This can be see by one asking how can a timeless rift be given such a temperory effect of the begining of time? One has to be extremely powerful in order to create the universe if not omnipotent. Thus for this reason God Exists.

Contention 3: Thomisitc TA

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." [4]
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. [5]
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. Now I know what my opponent had brought up and I agree with a lot of it, however, 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. [6] We can actually see that a very very simplified version of this is in the Bible.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."- Genesis 1:1

You see, back then they didn't have a large understanding on the universe and how things worked so we can definately see books like the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran to probably not be science text books. If God had shown humans this we can see that they would probably be like Nastrodamus's description of the German Blitzkreig by calling the NAZI panzers Metal beasts or how he wasn't able to describe skyscrapers and such, but you get my point. People didn't have the best information and how things are now and it wasn't until just a couple hundred years ago before we began to make improvements in Space and Science.

Fred Hoyle, the man who coined the term the "Big Bang," has stated, "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics." [7]

Next, we can see that the Big Bang here also highly applies to my 3rd Contention from my last round of Thomistic TA. The next 5 points are add on by Hugh Ross to the original 5 points and this helps show that the Big Bang proves the existance of God.

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. [8]

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." [9]

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. [9]

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. Craig, William Lane; Moreland, J. P. (2009). The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Oxford: John Wiley and Sons.
4. Edward Feser, "Teleology: A Shopper's Guide," Philosophia Christi 12 (2010): 157
5. David S. Oderberg, "Teleology: Inorganic and Organic," in A.M. González (ed.), Contemporary Perspectives on Natural Law(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008): 259-79
6. (
7. (
8. (Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos (Colorado Springs: Navpress, 1995), p. 14.)
9. ( Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, p. 76.)
Debate Round No. 1


No God is most likely to be true via. law of parsimony, the simplest explanation is a priori most likely.1

The MOA depends on a highly specific definition of “possible” to be valid, which in possible world semantics (which the MOA is derived) is metaphysical possibility.2 It is completely different to epistemic possibility, which is a representation of subjective possibility, or a statement of “possible for all I know”.

Thus, Pro must argue that a necessary being (God) is metaphysically possible, but he has not done so, thus P1 is unsound. To illustrate, the Goldbach conjecture is an unproven theorem in mathematics, it is thus “epistemologically possible”, however that is insufficient to conclude it is logically/metaphysically possible, especially given it is a necessary truth IF true.8 Given we cannot prove mathematical theorems this way, epistemic possibility is simply not sufficient (which is what Pro tries to affirm).

1.Law is conservation of mass is falsified by mass-energy equivalence, allowing for hypothesis such as zero energy universe to remain logical consistent with existing laws.6-7 The Earth doesn’t explode since it’s bound by the physical laws which themselves are part of the universe. Sans physical laws as well as time we no longer have reason to believe things need causes, since we have no time directionality, nor physical constraint.

2.Pro’s interpretation of BGV theorem relies on the assumption that space-time remains classical and the presentism ontology of time is correct. The former is dubious in light of quantum gravity, and the latter in light of general relativity, which entails four-dimensionalism & eternalism.9

1. This argument doesn’t argue for God, thus is irrelevant to the resolution.
2.Pro equivocates between telos that is prescribed and telos that is attributed. Pro needs to prove the former.









Contention 1: Ontological Argument

My opponent brings up God having to be metaphysically impossible, but when we look to premise 1 we see that my opponent must prove that God is 100% impossible, however, when we observe the rest of my argument for my last round we can see that if we apply my S5 argument, which was dropped, we can see that the Premise is actually true. Here's the S5 argument again.

S5: If possibly necessarily P, then necessarily P [1]

This is important as when it's applied to the chain of events we can see that the probability is indeed a fact due to it's necessarilally. Remind you that this was a dropped argument on this as it help aids Premise 1 where my opponenet did most of his attacks on. This is huge, because we can see that the fact is that it changes from God probably existing to God exists necessarially. Necessary is defined as happening or existing by necessity, being essential, indispensable, or requisite [2]. Here we can see that God is happening and existing by definition and since this was dropped this helps highlight the point made here in premises 1.

On the matter of proving God by doing mathematics we can see that this is indeed possible as Scientist Godel has actually given the following proofs for God and they just so happen to fall under this contention.

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property [3]
Axiom 4 has been stated that it must be necessary and is possible to point out the good in all things. Godel himself had stated that, "Postitive means that in a positive moral aestetics sense. It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation." [4] The other Axioms can be summed up to be an ultrafilter which I'll get into a little later on. The Axioms can be translated into the following theorums and math equation.

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Theorem 2: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 3: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 4: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified. [4]

Now we can see that this mathematical equation was actually done and proven. With it being solved we can see that it brings up great and highly valid evidence that God exists. People used the above theorums and axioms through the use of LEO-II and Statallax. [6]

Contention 2: Kalam Cosmological Argument

My opponent goes on to argue here agains the law of conservation of mass due to the Zero Energy Genesis theory, however, it can be observed that the though the mass is net zero we can still have yet to see mass created or destroyed in the universe to this day. With that being said this actually ties in with part of the second half of my third contention in which I showed that these Quantum Flucatations did exist, BUT it proved the existance of God in itself! This is due to the gravitational strips that formed in the universe just moments after the Big Bang and this is found to have imperical implications for this religious debate concidering that once we show that God can exist. This is key to this debate as though the argument is predominately in my 3rd contention we can see that the fact stands and that it was DROPPED which is highly important as it help reveals that God created the universe and this is something that my opponent ignored. I extend these arguments across the board.

He attempts to refute the BGV theorem, but goes about it the wrong way. It still stands that this theory can exists as once again we can simply apply the S5 argument that my opponent has dropped and we can find that this theory is indeed true. We can also see that it is true that if a being did create the universe then he would have to be some supreme being and that would most likely be that of God. I further extend my arguments here seeing that they weren't truely refuted by my oppoenent. We can also see from the bellow graph that once again looking at space time we are indeed exspanding and by using this model the universe does indeed have a beginning and hence a Creation. It's highly common knowledge that the universe is exspanding and we can see by using the Borde Guth Vilekien Model of comparing Blue and Red shifts we can see that through high accuracy that the universe is exspanding and hence revealing that the universe had to have orinated and have had a finate beginning at some point of time.

Contention 3: Thomistic TA

My opponent states that this argument is irrelivant, but that is highly incorrect as it does indeed apply to God and hence is topical under this resolution. If we view the premise again.

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

We can see here that point three reveals that we need to have an intelligent being in the universe that all things are based to via teleology and we can see that this ordering intellect is God. In which I showed in a previous round that teleology shows that all things morally permissable and all ethics are grounded and based to one object speficically. I have proved both so my opponent's point here is null and void. We can continually see that Teleology doesn't just apply to things in persoinality with humans alone, but we can see that this actually occurs in nature too! He also drops my Biblical creation evidence that I have provided and the explications that came with it. We can see that even though it was something simple like God created the heavens and the Earth we can see that the knowledge back then was highly limitted and in no way did people know much about the universe back then. Even the mind of Plato did not truely know nor comprehend the creation of the universe nor the complexities of the universe itself.

We can also see that my opponent has dropped the second half of the argument here in that of the premise of Ross. Though these arguments are in the same contention by no means are they connected in the sense that the first half relies on the second half so you cannot just try to disprove the first half and disreguard the second half of the set. This is another important thing for this debate as we show that the universe exists and in the end God has to also exist and this is due to God being present and having to had been able to create the univserse and this was needed as there was nothing in the beginning. We can see that it was not until the universe began that time began, so we can see that God can exist in that manner. Once again this can be shown by God being able to exist in some alternative timeless dimension. For this second string Ross sites the Bible to further his beliefs in God behind the Big Bang further explaining how the universe was created and that God is in another dimension.

"Again, by definition, time is that realm or dimension in which cause-and effect phenomena take place. According to the space-time theorem of general relativity, such effects as matter, energy, length, width, height, and time were caused independent of the time dimension of the universe. According to the New Testament (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2), such effects as grace and hope were caused independent of the time dimension of the universe. So both the Bible and general relativity speak of at least one additional time dimension for god." [7]

1. (Marenbon, M., Medieval Philosophy: An Historical and Philosophical Introduction, Routledge, 2006, p. 128.)
2. (
3. ('s_ontological_proof)
4. (Kurt Gödel (1995). "Ontological Proof". Collected Works: Unpublished Essays & Lectures, Volume III. pp. 403–404. Oxford University Press.)
5. (
6. (
7. ( Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, p. 80.)
Debate Round No. 2


1.Shifting BoP is not an argument. Metaphysical possibility of God needs to be demonstrated
2.The reverse premise:

“It is metaphysically possible for God to not exist”

Entails the reverse conclusion “God doesn’t exist” via. the reverse MOA by exactly the same logic. It’s both epistemically & logically possible via. possible worlds with only one particle obeying a time-dependant Hamiltonian (e.g.).3 See below:

Godel OA
1. Pro’s axioms and theorems are all bare assertions
2. Existence is simply arbitrarily designated as ‘positive’ – question begging. ”Positive” must be justified objectively, not subjectively by Pro to be valid
3.Definition 1&2 assumes Cartesian essentialism is correct, however existentialism & nihilism are possible & exclusive, the latter most parsimonious. Thus the definition are question begging of coherence.5
4.Axiom 5 assumes existence is a predicate, which entails absurd expectations ( $1,000,000 necessarily existing in my account is “positive"...yet I’m poor)


1.Pro drops P1 (no justification given) & misses point of 0-energy hypothesis. It’s completely *logically consistent* with *existing laws*, even if unproven - refutes his assertion that it’s scientifically impossible
2.Rest is gibberish

1.I never tried to refute BGV theorem, I challenged Pro’s interpretation of it. His interpretation relies on underlying assumptions (presentism, classical space-time on all scales) which are false
2.In eternalism, the universe no more “begins to exist” at the first-moment in time than a ruler “begins to exist” with its first inch. Past present & future all exist at once and all are part of a tenseless whole

1.Doesn’t prove God as defined & Bible is irrelevant to TA
2.Pro ignores prescriptive/descriptive distinction
3.Evolution via. natural selection is a way to generate descriptive “telos”. Descriptive telos can be attributed to anything e.g. mountains exist for camels to itch their backs




I violated the rules last round and due to the TOS I must forfeit all 7 points because of it. I do appologize to my opponent for wasting characters as accused in the comments section.
Debate Round No. 3


I request voters to ignore Lannan's forfeiture since he did not break any rules and clearly misunderstood them. Thus, please vote based on the two rounds already presented so far.

P.S. Writing those rounds was like trying to pack a handbag with everything you need for a 1 month camping trip. Ack!


No round as agreed upon.
Debate Round No. 4
53 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GamrDeb8rBbrH8r 1 year ago
The obvious reason why bluesteel simply provided a google docs link to her RFD is because she thinks she can get away with it just because she's a voting moderator.
Posted by johnlubba 1 year ago
Is the Burden of proof in this debate shared ?
Posted by Philocat 1 year ago
Well, they do say a picture says a thousand words... :P
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
vote: tejretics // Moderator action taken: removed<

3 points to Con (arguments), 2 points to Pro (sources). {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: Very, very close. While it was ALMOST a tie, with Envisage's arguments and Lannan's arguments being equal, the slightly stronger rebuttals of Envisage gives Envisage a slight edge. Lannan's sources were only slightly better, but I gave him sources to make the score a good 3 to 2 to indicate how close it was.}

[*Reason for removal.* This RFD is not specific enough. It could be copy-pasted into any of debate involving these two debaters. The RFD merely says *that* Con had slightly better arguments and Pro had slightly better sources. It does not explain *why.* The RFD thus fails to offer any meaningful feedback to the debaters about their arguments, which is the point of an RFD system. Thus, this RFD was removed for lack of specificity and failure to provided any useful feedback.]
Posted by Zarroette 1 year ago
Ragnar's suggestion is really good. I'd be very interested to read and vote on this debate.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Could you guys redo this to finish it, then have this one deleted?
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
You vote Con. I don't deserve any points in this debate what-so-ever. All 7 points to Envisage.
Posted by Varrack 1 year ago
Do I vote Con or vote based on the arguments?
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
Envisage, PM me.
Posted by Envisage 1 year ago
" I recommend my opponent be as unethical as humanly possible in this debate, abusing character-wasting techniques such as Gish Gallop, etc if he so wishes. Voters should vote based normally but not deduct conduct for application of these techniques"
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 1 year 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD:
Vote Placed by johnlubba 1 year 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: I've read through the debate and find Pro violated the rules in the third round by not meeting the full eight thousand character requirement, Although Envisage asks us to vote based on just the other rounds were arguments are meeting character requirements, I award Envisage the winner, Based on successfully offering genuine alternatives to the KCA based on the B-theory of time, although Envisage does not prove his case, it's enough to cast doubt, Also Pro's TA argument was extremely weak, and as Envisage pointed out, it didn't do enough to prove the God defined in the debate. Also by request of Pro, he forfeits. Tough to get my head around this vote, but ultimately and sadly Envisage wins it,
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 1 year 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: S/G: I'm giving S/G to Con, since Pro had many S/G mistakes. In particular, "bellow" was painful to read. ARGS: I'm awarding Con the arguments since he made adequate refutations to each of Pro's arguments. Pro argued via the MOA, KCA, and TA. He also provided quotes from Ross which seemed to essentially be the KCA. Con refuted the MOA by showing that Pro had not established the premise of possibility, and by presenting the reverse MOA. He refuted the KCA by pointing out the various theories of time, and that some made more sense with present scientific knowledge, while also showing that Pro had not justified presentism. The defeater for the TA for me was, as Con pointed out, that the argument did not demonstrate the existence of God per definitions of the debate. Also, Con brought up attributed vs. prescribed teleology which was not responded to by Pro. Overall, fun debate to read, guys!