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

Is "God" real?

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: 3/27/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 600 times Debate No: 72462
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




Looking to debate an Atheist with a secular philosophical argument against a creator existing!


I take it that first round is acceptance?

I accept.
God- Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, non-physical creator of the universe.
Real- exists in reality
Debate Round No. 1


There is absolutely no proof that spontaneous entropy through the process of Abiogensis can occur or has occurred. There are absolutely no real world examples of this either.
In the words of Thomas Paine:
"In the first place, admitting matter to have properties, as we see it has, the question still remains, how came matter by those properties? To this they will answer, that matter possessed those properties eternally. This is not solution, but assertion; and to deny it is as impossible of proof as to assert it. It is then necessary to go further; and therefore I say - if there exist a circumstance that is not a property of matter, and without which the universe, or to speak in a limited degree, the solar system composed of planets and a sun, could not exist a moment, all the arguments of atheism, drawn from properties of matter, and applied to account for the universe, will be overthrown, and the existence of a superior cause, or that which man calls God, becomes discoverable. The universe is composed of matter, and, as a system, is sustained by motion. Motion is not a property of matter, and without this motion, the solar system could not exist. Were motion a property of matter, that undiscovered and undiscoverable thing called perpetual motion would establish itself. It is because motion is not a property of matter, that perpetual motion is an impossibility in the hand of every being but that of the Creator of motion. When the pretenders to atheism can produce perpetual motion, and not till then, they may expect to be credited. The natural state of matter, as to place, is a state of rest. Motion, or change of place, is the effect of an external cause acting upon matter. As to that faculty of matter that is called gravitation, it is the influence which two or more bodies have reciprocally on each other to unite and be at rest. Everything which has hitherto been discovered, with respect to the motion of the planets in the system, relates only to the laws by which motion acts, and not to the cause of motion. Gravitation, so far from being the cause of motion to the planets that compose the solar system, would be the destruction of the solar system, were revolutionary motion to cease; for as the action of spinning upholds a top, the revolutionary motion upholds the planets in their orbits, and prevents them from gravitating and forming one mass with the sun. In one sense of the word, philosophy knows, and atheism says, that matter is in perpetual motion. But the motion here meant refers to the state of matter, and that only on the surface of the Earth. It is either decomposition, which is continually destroying the form of bodies of matter, or recomposition, which renews that matter in the same or another form, as the decomposition of animal or vegetable substances enters into the composition of other bodies. But the motion that upholds the solar system, is of an entirely different kind, and is not a property of matter. It operates also to an entirely different effect. It operates to perpetual preservation, and to prevent any change in the state of the system. Giving then to matter all the properties which philosophy knows it has, or all that atheism ascribes to it, and can prove, and even supposing matter to be eternal, it will not account for the system of the universe, or of the solar system, because it will not account for motion, and it is motion that preserves it. When, therefore, we discover a circumstance of such immense importance, that without it the universe could not exist, and for which neither matter, nor any nor all the properties can account, we are by necessity forced into the rational conformable belief of the existence of a cause superior to matter, and that cause man calls GOD. As to that which is called nature, it is no other than the laws by which motion and action of every kind, with respect to unintelligible matter, are regulated. And when we speak of looking through nature up to nature's God, we speak philosophically the same rational language as when we speak of looking through human laws up to the power that ordained them. God is the power of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon."



Based off the definition of God provided, I will be arguing that the definition is incoherent, thus making it so god (as defined) does not exist.

External incoherency:

P1) If God created the universe, the universe has a cause.
P2) The universe can only have a cause if tensed facts exist.
P3) Tensed facts do not exist.
C1) The universe does not have a cause (follows from P2 and P3).
C2) GOd did not create the universe (follows from P1 and C1).

Defense of Premise 1:
I am sure that this does not need much for explanation. If God created the universe, the logically god is the cause and the universe is the effect.

Defense of Premise 2:
The principals of causality require for there to be a movement of time. A before the effect, an after the cause, etc. This requires tensed facts.
This point is seemingly agreed upon by all time theorists, even William Lane Craig[1].

Defense of Premise 3:
To defend premise 3 I will be proposing that the most probable theory of time is the B-Theory of Time.
Effects like relativity and time dialation support the B-Theory of Time while refuting the A-Theory of Time (the A-Theory of Time is the theory of time that allows tensed facts to exist).

Further support for this premise comes from recent experiments in quantum mechanics. Under the B-Theory of Time, the progression of time is an illusion, and time does not really pass. If one were to have "god view", a view of the universe from outside of it, the universe would appear static.
A recent study has shown that the progress of time is an illusion caused from quantum entanglement, and that if you did have "god view" that the universe would actually appear static[2].

P1) A fundamental force carrier is required to interact with the material.
P2) God is defined as not being physical/material.
P3) Fundamental force carriers are physical/material.
C1) God does not have any fundamental force carriers (follows from P2 and P3).
C2) God cannot interact with the material (follows from P1 and C1).

Defence of Premise 1:
Modern particle physics has determined that a fundamental force carrier is a requirement to interact with matter[3].

Defense of Premise 2:
Pro, who defined god, said that god was not physical. This means that this premise is true by definition.

Defense of Premise 3:
This is also based off the current knowledge of quantum physics, that they are particles.

Internal incoherency:

Omnipotence Paradox: Can god create a rock so large that (s)he cannot lift it? Can god create an all piercing spear and immenetrable shield?

Omniscient Paradox: Can god know what it is like to be ignorant? To feel deja vu? To be forgetful?

Omnipotent + Omniscient: Can god both know the future and have the power to change it?

Omnibenevolent + Omniscient: Can god know what it is like to be evil? To do evil?

Omnipotent + Omnipresent: Can god create a place in which (s)he cannot go?


God, as defined, is both internally and externally incoherent. Because of this, we can safely say that this god does not exist.
Debate Round No. 2


AgnosticDeism forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
@SNP1, y u use same argument as meh?
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
>ThatLezChick // Moderator action: Removed<

2 points to Pro, 5 points to Con. {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: Cool debate}

[*Reason for removal*] Vote bomb. It doesn't explain any of its 7 points.
Posted by SNP1 1 year ago
Just realized I forgot to put my sources on my second round. Whoops.
Posted by Kozu 1 year ago
Is that still a debate?
Posted by SNP1 1 year ago
Well, now I regret accepting this "debate". I don't like debating someone who will just use a quote for 90% of their argument.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Pro had full BoP but did *not* defend their position, instead negating *possible* arguments against God, shifting BoP to Con and acting on such. Con's arguments were well-structured and supported the non-existence of God.