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

Is is probable that the Christian God does not exist.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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: 10/27/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 587 times Debate No: 81609
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Full disclosure, I am debating this issue because I'd like to boost my ELO so that I am eligible to vote in the "better" debates. Also, I know this is a topic of importance, so I have no doubt it will be accepted.

My position, as the resolution states, is that that Christian God is less likely to exist than it is likely to exist. In other words, there is reason to believe that the probability of the Christian God existing is less than 50%.


1.Burden of Proof is shared. I will present an argument showing why God likely does *not* exist, while the opponent does the opposite.

2. No trolling, semantics or kritiks. Debate the issue.

3. No forfeits. A forfeit without a reasonable explanation constitutes an immediate loss.

Round Structure:

R1: Acceptance. If Con needs clarification, ask for it here. Otherwise, no arguments.
R2-4: Arguments/Rebuttals
R5: Closing Remarks. You can address previous arguments, but don't offer new ones.


Vestigia By Bliss Carman
---------------------------------------------------------------This poem has struck me as a thought provoking work of art that is saying
I took a day to search for God,-------------------- That although we cannot see God he exists in the everyday world, in the
And found Him not. But as I trod ------------------ ---beauty of a flower, the softness of the sod , the mountains, the birds, every
By rocky ledge, through woods untamed, --------- single atom of the earth, every living thing reflects the love of God. My
Just where one scarlet lily flamed,-------------------- opponent is stepping where he shouldn't be. I do not know where he is
I saw His footprint in the sod. ------------------------- going to find evidence to back himself up considering I have a whole world
Then suddenly, all unaware,----------------------------- of my evidence right now. And what is this about percentages? My
Far off in the deep shadows, where -------------------opponent sounds unsure. God exists and that is my statement.
A solitary hermit thrush
Sang through the holy twilight hush "
I heard His voice upon the air.
And even as I marveled how
God gives us Heaven here and now,
In a stir of wind that hardly shook
The poplar leaves beside the brook "
His hand was light upon my brow.
At last with evening as I turned
Homeward, and thought what I had learned
And all that there was still to probe "
I caught the glory of His robe
Where the last fires of sunset burned.
Back to the world with quickening start
I looked and longed for any part
In making saving Beauty be "
And from that kindling ecstasy
I knew God dwelt within my heart.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I'll jump right into my arguments.

A Numerical Approach

Let us create a set of gods that could possible exist.

G = [None, Christian God, Allah, Ra, Hermes, ... , unknown god a, unknown god b, ... ]

This set is clearly infinite. If we were to create subsets of G with similar characteristics, we might come to three subsets. The first is finite and contains only "None". This is the subset that represents a state in which a god does not exist. The second would also be finite and would consist of all the gods that history has every mentioned. We might call these "named gods". The last subset would be infinite, and would contain all possible gods that could exist, but that have not been named.

Understanding this, we might assume that every element of G is equally as likely to be true as all the others. If we do assume this, we can calculate the probability of the Christian God existing by placing the likelihood that a Christian God exists over the combined likelihoods of each other possible god. This essentially leaves us with the probability of the Christian God existing at
1/infinity -- which is zero for all intents and purposes.

Changing Weights

The previous argument would be acceptable for a hypothetical universe, one that we know little about. However, we do have the privilege of living in an actual universe, so we can make observations in an attempt to change the probabilistic weights of our set G.

Starting with the subset of all unknown gods, we really can't change these weights at all. They will all be equal in weight since there is no information we can gain about them through observation.

The remaining subsets will gain additional weight, based upon the physical evidence that each case is true. I will be arguing that a) the subset [None] has a substantial amount of weight and b) that the Christian God element does not have enough weight to be considered to have a probability above 50%.

Arguments For [None]

Religious Texts: Most all we known about known gods comes from religious texts that have been created throughout the centuries. There has yet to be a verifiable instance in which a god took physical form and made clear his existence, so we are left with texts.

Many of these texts claim their relevant god interacts with the world. Some gods, like the Roman/Greek gods, interact more with this world than others. What we can do, then, is look at how much a given god is supposed to interact with the world and compare it to how much they actually seem to have interacted with the world. If there is a significant disparity between the two, it decreases the likelihood that the god in question exists.

Since we are talking about the Christian god, I will only analyze the Bible and its claims regarding God's interactions with the world. The events we will be considering: the creation of the world, the creation of man, and the Great Flood. These events were some of the most important that God supposedly orchestrated.

The Creation of the World: The scientific theory on how the Earth formed over 4.5 billion years ago is one rarely disputed. An immense amount of work put in by many different fields of science has greatly increased our understanding of how our world was formed and how worlds are formed in general. Basically, as stars form, dense clumps of matter can be thrown off into the forming star's orbit. These dense clumps accumulate solid matter over time, eventually forming a planet.

This is inconsistent with the Biblical creation of the Earth. The Bible clearly states that the Earth was created by God directly, not through other astrological events. Additionally, it states that the Earth existed before light did. This is counter to our understanding of planetary formation, which necessitates that a star exist prior to the planet's being formed.

The Creation of Man: The Bible claims that God created man. This runs counter to evolutionary theory, for which there is a great wealth of evidence. It is understood that man did not always have this form, but that we evolved from ape-like creatures. This is vastly different than the Bible's claim that man was directly created, in his current form, by God.

The Great Flood: The Bible claims that God, at one point, flooded the entire earth with water for a period exceeding 40 days. Such a flood would leave physical evidence in the surface of the earth, and slightly beneath it in various beds of rocks and sediment. The science is fairly complicated and can be found here: []

There is physical evidence that the flood did not occur, meaning that God did not act upon the earth as the Bible claimed.

Remembering my previous statement that a god is less likely to exist if his religious texts claims he interacted with the world when it can be proved he did not, it is clear that this brief analysis demonstrates that the Christian God has a diminished probability.

In fact, if we look at the world we see that we understand why most things happen. There remain fewer and fewer physical events that cannot be explained by science. This is relevant because it reduces the likelihood of most known gods existing, since most of these claim to have dramatically interacted with the world.

Analyzing Current Probability Weights

Now that we've looked at the physical evidence in our universe, we are able to modify our probability weights and again look at the resolution.

We have concluded that the weights of our unknown gods have not changed (assuming they do not interact with the world), since we have no information about them. We've seen that all known gods fall in probability, due to my previous argument regarding religious texts' claims and contrary physical evidence. We additionally know that the likelihood of [None] being the case increases, since the set G must add to '1' and we have seen reduced likelihoods in our 'known god' subset.

Given this, it is likely that a known god does not exist, especially the Christian God (which we analyzed in more depth). We are left with two likelihoods: that no god exists or that an unknown, non interacting God exists.

In this case, we simply apply Occam's Razor and we are left with the conclusion that there most likely is not a God.

I look forward to my opponent's response.


You know the saying that numbers don"t lie. However if those numbers cannot be proved then they are pointless it is like a plate of cookies on the other side of a brick wall and your stating how many cookies are on the plate when you are not for certain. That is how I know that the number of Gods you are trying to say there could be, is wrong. As the Bible states there is only one true God and the God in the bible is the one until you disprove it.
As I have said, this shouldn"t be about numbers because you haven"t the proper evidence to disprove that a God, the "Christian God" as you put it, created the formation of this world, the organisms, and most specifically human beings.

This is tough ground for me to dig through. I"ll have you know I am a 17 year old apprentice welder in a dirt roots town in Manitoba Canada. I have a firm belief in Christ and I hope to share this with the voters. This will obviously be a vote between believers and non-believers. I like the way you say the "Christian God" to try and make it less possible for there to be a certain God. But people, God is God. There may be different names for him but in the end he is the same. I being of first nation"s descent know him as the Great Spirit. Others may know him differently.

I don"t like the way you try and put down religious text. Like the creation of the world. Are you saying that an omnipotent all powerful being could not have made the grass the animals and people? As science progresses we ourselves can even make organisms so why can"t another larger than life being have made us? Don"t get me started on evolution which has more gaps in it than a brick mansion. Many finds of what they say man evolved from is being disproved and inconclusive and no wonder with such little pieces they think they can make an ancient being that resembles a human that we evolved from. In the book "Icons of Evolution", by Jonathan Wells it argues to disprove almost all we know about evolution. Dealing with man fossil horses, Darwin"s tree of life, Haeckel"s Embryos, peppered moths Darwin"s finches and more. A very interesting read and if I must later I will bring up the topics to the debate.

As for evidence the flood happened there much more evidence that it did indeed happen. I don"t want to fire into a debate about the flood, lets save that for another time. But look it up my friend, there is no doubt in my mind that it happened because of what the evidence suggests and it would make sense that the giants causing destruction were dinosaurs and the flood only affected the land dwellers that breathed in the air, not sharks or whales which also points that sharks are indeed from the times of the dinosaurs. But like I said look it up for yourself then decide.

Both sides of this debate require faith. We simply weren"t there. Who knows, Lucifer himself may have caused this confusion. Anyways, I"ll stand my faith on the rock Jesus Christ and answer any question you have my friend. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2


Before I get into my response, I'd like to point out that the opponent has said that he may not have internet connection this weekend. If he cannot get his response out in time and has to forfeit one round, that shall not be a loss for him. Instead, he can post in the following round. I'm making this decision based upon the content he offered in return and the number of rounds this debate is set to have.

Next, I'd like to thank the opponent for giving some back story regarding his belief. It always makes debates more interesting when a debater humanises his position. Hopefully sites like this and opponents like myself will either make you reconsider what your faith means to your or make you grow stronger in your faith. Whichever the case, it never hurts to become more educated about arguments for and against your cause.

I'll now move into the content of my opponent's argument.

The Sheer Number of Possible Gods

Let's start out by quoting something the opponent said: " is like a plate of cookies on the other side of the wall and you stating how many cookies are on the plate when you are not for certain". Here, he actually supports my arguments regardining the infinitude of possible gods. Imagine we are on the other side of this wall and we are trying to determine how many cookies are on some given plate. If we assume the room behind the wall is of infinite size, then the number of cookies can range from zero to infinity. From a general probabilistic perspective, the set of possible cookies is C = {0, 1, 2, ... }, tending towards infinity.

This is exactly what my first point is saying. If we assume we have no information regarding the probability of some god existing, then our set of possible gods is clearly infinite. This is how I made the conclusion that, without additional information, the probability that one specific god exists (the Christian God) amongst all the options is virtually zero.

Looking at Physical Evidence to Change Probabilistic Weights

Let's again look at this cookie scenario. Generally, the set of possible cookies is infinite, however we can use physical evidence to change the probability of each specific element occuring. So in this town with the wall, we might have a single bakery and a single Walmart and no other stores. Given this, we know that the amount of flour in said town is limited. Additionally, perhaps we know that this wall is relatively new and that no new shipments have come into town. We can then know that the number of cookies cannot be too large, as the limit in flour directly constrains cookie output.

With this new information in hand, we can take our infinite cookie possibilities, C, and recalculate the probabilistic weights. Now, we know that a large amount of cookies (say, over 100,000) is highly unlikely, which means every amount of cookies under 100,000 just became much more likely.

This is essentially what I have done in "Changing Weights" argument. I've looked at the physical evidence for a particular god, the Christian God, then used the results of this to conclude that the probability of this god is actually quite low. I did this in a few ways and my opponent responded to these, mostly. I will cover them right after a brief point regarding the burden of proof.

Burden of Proof

As I stated in the first round, burden of proof is shared in this debate. This means both sides try to prove that the claim, "[It] is probable that the Christian God does not exist," to be true or false, and the side that most reasonable shows their arguments to be superior wins.

Now the opponent has brought of the Bible by stating that I must disprove it in order in order to disprove that there is only one possible god. Two problems with this:

First, the opponent is making the objective claim that the Bible is real. Whereas I started with a probabilistic argument deeply rooted in math, the opponent is making an objective claim. It is, therefore, his burden of proof to show that the Bible is indeed accurate. It would be no different if I claimed that God cannot exist because unicorns created the universe. Without some degree of proof that unicorns a) exist and b) did that, my argument would hold no water and it would not be my opponent's obligation to disprove my statement. It would be considered false in the first place, until given credence.

Next, my argument actually demonstrates that the likelihood of the Christian God is low in the first place, meaning that the Bible probably isn't true in the first place either. With each argument that reduces the likelihood of God, I also reduce the veracity of the Bible, further weakening my opponent's position.

Now, let's talk about the physical evidence I mentioned earlier.

Creation of the World

My opponent's response to this point essentially says that an omnipotent being would have the power to create our world. I do now deny that.

However, I looked at Biblical Creation in the way the Bible claims it happened and showed that it contradicts our understanding of how worlds actually form. The fact that physics shows that the world was not created in the particular way the Bible said brings the veracity of the Bible into question, as well as the God of the Bible.

Creation of Man

For the sake of not turning this into an "Evolution" argument, I won't get yipper-skipper about proving this just yet. Instead, I'll point out that the academic and scientific community largely supports the theory of evolution. While this doesn't make it true, it does show that the opponent will need some evidence that evolutionary theory is flawed. While the book he mentions interests me, it is not evidence until he can actually quote arguments from the book. Simply mentioning a book does not qualify as evidence, in this debate setting.

So yea, opponent: Find me some evidence questioning evolution and we can have a more specific discussion about it.

The Great Flood

The opponent asserts that there is a great amount of evidence that the Flood occurred, but suggested we save that discussion for another time. While we can do that, that would mean this argument flows to me, greatly weakening the opponent's argument. I presented evidence in my speech briefly explaining why a great flood did not occur and my opponent must adequately address this.

As for my opponent's next claim regarding dinosaurs, giants and sharks, I'm going to just ignore that bit. He has no evidence for those claims and the entire scenario he's proposing seems... like something that needs evidence.

My Opponent's Argument

Recalling that both sides have a burden of proof here, it is necessary that my opponent make an argument as well. Currently, his argument seems to boil down to "The Bible", a subject I have already discussed. (Opponent needs some degree of proof.) I suggest that the opponent attempt to develop an argument for your position; don't just respond to my arguments. If you do that, if I win even a single point in my argument the debate will go to me, simply because you never presented a solid argument on your own position.

I look forward to the next round! Again, if the opponent doesn't manage to respond, that's ok. His internet is being shoddy and he lives in Manitoba, Canada.


My goodness, mind explosion going on here. Don"t involve numbers!! There is only one cookie on the plate here because as I have stated different nations have different names for an omnipotent being which I and a billion or so people know as God. So stop using my cookie scenario in your favor as I said nobody (unless omnipotent) knows the number of cookies. It"s like me trying to guess your name when there is an infinity amount of things that your name could be. It is also improbable that more than one exists. I know what you"re saying regarding infinity. Because I can just say "Bob" or any word imaginable and make him a God to myself. However we shouldn"t discuss that because it is improbable that more than one God exists, for the Bible and many texts like it state there is only one. By the way as a Seventh Day Adventist I believe in the trinity of God, that being God the Father, Jesus the son and the Holy Spirit co existing as one eternal being. Angels are not omnipotent, by the way. I believe the fallen angels, such as Lucifer, are the ones that make it so impossible to find a true God since it is written for us to beware of the false Gods on the earth. Most of what I say will somehow involve the bible which I think is mostly an instruction manual and requires faith and study to really believe with your heart I will not state direct quotes unless asked because I want people to seek for their selves. For this debate I will refer to the Bible as my textbook.
I dislike math!! The only reason I"m not taking basic math is so I can later go to university to become a pastor. So I"m saying there is only one cookie for there is more proof and it"s more likely of there being only one cookie then there being an infinity amount of them. So there"s no Walmart, bakery or farmers dang field! There is one cookie that is just there, we don"t know why mostly because we can"t actually see it because it"s behind the darn brick wall! It"s just there, was always there and always will be there! And until the wall falls down we will never know. But I am not taking the risk because I know for a fact He exists and will try my best to obey my mother and follow the instructions that are laid out before me and you know what? My life is better for it! I"m sorry I"m starting to preach but my life has been based on God, I"ve seen so many people"s lives changed by God. And just being conscience right now mind processes, debates, dreaming, and reading, touching, hearing and seeing I know that couldn"t have been the result of some big bang of interstellar chunks of rock and genetic mutations, and selective breeding. I can"t wait to quote my book and I will in the next paragraph.
The book called Icons of Evolution, by Jonathon Wells" first chapter involves the Oparin Haldane hypothesis which claims that lightning in the primitive atmosphere produced the first building blocks of life. The book says that Darwin speculated that life may have started in "some warm little pond" In the same way Oparin and Haldane hypothesized that chemicals in the atmosphere dissolved in the primordial seas to form a "Hot dilute soup" from which the first living cells emerged. The book goes on to say that many scientists became intrigued by this and the idea became accepted as "what science thinks" about the first steps in the origin of life. However it wasn"t until the early 50s when Stanley Miller an American Graduate student and his Ph.D. Advisor Harold Urey produced some of the chemical building blocks of life by sending an electric spark through a mixture of gasses they thought simulated the earth"s atmosphere at that time. This made scientific history and the experiment was put into all sorts of textbooks, newspapers, magazines and documentaries and is still featured to show that science has proved how the first building blocks of life were made even though for more than a decade most geochemists believe this experiment failed to simulate conditions on the early earth and so has little or nothing to do with the origins of life. The book goes on to tell us why. The Osparin Haldane scenario depends crucially on the earth"s atmospheric composition. Right now the earth"s atmosphere is about 21% oxygen. Although we think that an atmosphere rich in oxygen is essential to life, however the opposite is true for life"s building blocks and they could not have formed in such an atmosphere. We need oxygen because our cells produce energy through aerobic respiration. But our bodies must also make their own organic molecules otherwise we would not grow heal or reproduce. Respiration is the opposite of synthesis; Chemists call the process of respiration "oxidizing" and synthesis "reducing". Wells goes on to state that the same oxygen that is essential to aerobic respiration is often fatal to organic synthesis. Sure an electric spark in a closed container with swamp gas may make some pretty cool organic molecules. But even just a little oxygen and the spark will cause an explosion. Just like a closed container excludes oxygen and prevents swamp gas from exploding, compartments in our cells, all living cells, exclude oxygen from the process of organic synthesis. So before the origin of life the chemical building blocks of life could only have formed in a natural environment lacking oxygen. According to Oparin and Haldane that was the earth"s primitive atmosphere.
At present the earth"s atmosphere is strongly oxidizing. Which is the opposite of what Oparin and Haldane postulated. Specifically they believed the atmosphere at primitive times to be a mixture of methane (hydrogen combined with nitrogen) water vapour (hydrogen combined with oxygen) and hydrogen gas. They believed lightning in such an environment could spontaneously produce the organic molecules needed by living cells. Urey assumed that the earth"s original atmosphere had the same composition as interstellar gas clouds. However the same year he published his findings a university of Chicago geochemist by the name of Harrison Brown noticed that the abundance of the rare gases neon, argon, krypton, and xenon were at least a million times lower than the cosmic average and concluded that the earth must have lost its original atmosphere (if it ever had one very soon after its formation. In the late 1960s Princeton University geochemist Heinrich Holland and Carnegie institution geophysicist Phillip Abelson agreed with Brown. They concluded that the earths primitive atmosphere was derived from gases released by the earths own volcanoes which release water vapour, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and trace amounts of hydrogen. Hydrogen being very light would have escaped earth"s gravity and floated off into space.
But if the principal ingredient was water vapour the earth"s atmosphere must have also contained oxygen. Ultraviolet rays from sunlight cause dissociation of water vapour in the upper atmosphere. The process known as photo dissociation splits water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen being lighter floats off into space leaving oxygen behind on earth. Scientists believe the large amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere has been produced by photosynthesis, but photo dissociation would have produced small amounts of oxygen before photosynthesis therefore stopping cells from growing and photosynthesis would never have the chance to happen. Scientists have been debating this for years and the chance of volcanoes sparking building blocks of life is dimming. If you want to research more I suggest you do because obviously not all information is disclosed.
Next evolution of man I skipped a lot of chapters because my fingers are sore and because I may need that information for other debates but I firmly beleive that these chapters disprove Darwin"s Tree of Life, Homology in vertebrate limbs, Haeckel"s Embryos, Archaeopteryx: the missing link, peppered moths, Darwin"s finches,, four winged fruit flies, fossil horses and directed evolution and here we are the chapter From Ape to Human: The Ultimate Icon. In Darwin"s book The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex Darwin says that the origin of the human species was fundamentally similar to the origin of every other species. Human Beings, he argued are modified descendants of an ancestor they shared with other animals (most recently the apes) and their distinctive features due primarily (but not exclusively) to natural selection acting upon small variations. He had two controversial implications that stated Humans are nothing but animals, and they are not the preordained goal of a directed process. But in Darwin"s lifetime he had very limited amount of evidence to back such a claim up. There was no evidence for natural selection and the origin of variations was unknown. We"ve all seen the illustration that shows a knuckle walking ape going through a series of intermediate forms until in the form of the modern man. The illustration shows Darwin"s theory of how man evolved which is the ultimate icon of evolution. IN the 20th century the icon seemed to be finding evidence it lacked. Fossil discoveries appeared to be making links in the evolutionary chain leading to humans. Experiments on peppered moths seemed to provide the evidence needed to prove the natural selection
theory and geneticists thought they had found the raw materials for evolution and DNA mutations. However as this book proves, Kettlewell"s peppered moth experiments were flawed , the oscillating natural selection observed in Darwin"s Finches produce no long term evolution, and although beneficial DNA mutations occur at a biochemical level the well-known morphological mutations in four winged fruit flies produce cripples not raw materials for evolution.
I will now switch to another book called Creation and Evolution by Dwight K. Nelson In chapter two "The Achilles Heel of the Java Man". So you"ve most likely heard of Java man, Peking Man and Nebraska man. These are reconstructed "prehuman humans" that people often see in museums, encyclopaedias and textbooks, they try to show that the evolutionist"s ideas of our origin are correct. In reality the pictures you see of Java man are based on just three parts. Three teeth, one leg bone, and part of a skull discovered by a Dutch army physician Eugene Dubois. In 1891 Dr. Dubois announced that he was off to find evidence of primitive man and travelled to the Solo River near the village of Trinal, Java, in Indonesia. He first discovered the skull cap along the bank of the river. About a year later he found two molar teeth and a human femur 15 meters away from the skull cap. In 1898 he found a premolar tooth that he believed to belong to his first find. Despite the finds being widely scattered Dubois made the conclusion that they belonged together. From 5 fragments he constructed what he later called Pithecanthropus Erectus (Greek, Erect ape-man) known as Java Man. Evolutionist"s have concluded that this represents an early predecessor of humankind that lived about half a million years ago. However before he died Dubois admitted that the Java Man closely resembled a Gibbon like ape. But the scientific community had already accepted that the find was one of the missing links they had been hoping for and ignored him.
Another similar case was that of Nebraska Man. Based on only one tooth found by Harold Cook in 1922. Cook mailed the tooth to a famous paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn director of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. Osborn was fascinated by this find and compared it to all descriptions casts and drawings he could find and then consulted with three other scientists two of which were well known specialists on fossil primates. After much studying they announced that there was proof of an early man on the North American continent and published their find in the American Museum Novitates as follows. "It is hard to believe that a single water worn tooth "can signalize the arrival of the anthropoid primates in North America" We have been eagerly anticipating some discovery of this kind, but were not prepared for such convincing evidence"" This discovery named Hesperoppithecus haroldcookii (Harold Cooks Western ape) was illustrated in the London Daily Illustrated news and displayed a full paged spread reconstructing his whole shape, even the prominent brow ridges and broad shoulders from a single tooth! Sadly though two years later Nebraska Mans career came to an end. It turns out he was not a man not even an ape! The tooth turned out to be that of a fossil peccary. A wild animal related to the common pig. A man named Gish later wrote, "I believe this is a case in which a scientist made a man out of a pig and the pig made a monkey out of the scientist." The following are the most common examples of human evolution.
Rampithecus: teeth and parts of a jaw that were found in India in 1932 were thought to be a fossil humanoid. However further studies now link these remains to chimps and baboons that are still living in Africa.
Australopithecus: Fossils of this kind were discovered in South Africa by Dart in 1924 and Leakey in Tanzania in 1959. Further studies by British scientists Zuckerman and Oxnard, indicate that these animals did not resemble man or ape and could be categorized as a species of their own. (However if we saw one today we would not hesitate to call it an ape.)
In 1973 Donald Johansson"s "Lucy" was found in 1973 in Ethiopia. With 40% of the remains the individual who was female was calculated to be a little over a meter tall and having one third of the normal brain capacity of the modern human. She was claimed to be a bipedal humanoid three and a half million years old. Remains of more individuals have also been found similar, however further studies have dimmed the hope of these to be truly Bipedal and therefore not the missing link.
Homo Habilus: First discovered by Leakey"s son Richard called skull 1470 considered to be the intermediate between Australopithecus and Homo erectus (Java man). Recent discoveries on part of the skeleton has proved to be more apelike than thought before and there is concern that it may be a mosaic constructed from pieces of more than one species.
Neanderthal Man: pictured to be a primitive and brute like man until it became evident that he was fully human the skeleton was deformed by disease. His cranial capacity was greater or equal to that of modern humans.
Cro-Magnon Man: same as Neanderthal man cannot be used as evidence of our evolution from apes. Many other ancient human remains have been found but are either questionable, fragmentary or no significance for human evolution. Piltdown man had an important part on the evolutionary tree for a long time before it was discovered that someone had pieced together part fossil, part fresh bone, part ape, and part human remains to construct a skull.
No convincing fossil evidence has been found. I can go on to give more but than what about my next debate topic? I believe the readers will have to decide for themselves. And this is not all I have. There is a whole bookshelf at home to disprove evolution. If my opponent so choses I will add it to this debate. I thank my opponent for his concern to my poor internet and now Im sure that my fingeres will be bruised for a while for I have now typed this twice! Once on the typewriter at home and now on the computer and my fingers are sore. "BY faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so what is seen was made from things that are not visible" Hebrews 11:3
Debate Round No. 3


Thanks for the response! I'm glad that you got your internet back in time.

For the readers, I usually don't quote the opponent's argument, then respond -- since I think that practice is usually just to have a longer looking argument. However, my opponent's response is a little blocked up, so I'm going to be briefly summarizing each of his arguments in a quote. The quote is representative of his argument, not his exct words (to avoid confusion.)

Let's get started.

"The number of possible cookies (gods) is irrelevant, because there can only be one god."

This is actually a very debateabe issue. For instance, many of the Greek gods have the capability of coexisting. However, for the sake of the argument I'll assume that there probably is only one god.

I don't think the opponent is really understanding the heart of my infinity argument. I'm not (explicitly) stating that it's impossible to know how many gods there are, but rather there are an infinite number of possible gods, so the probability of any one particular god existing is quite low. Let's look at the cookie example again.

This time, we'll imagine that each cookie is different. One's chocolate chip, one's oatmeal-raisin, etc. Let's also assume the number of unique cookies is infinite. While we might assume that only one cookie lies beyond the wall, the infinitude of possible cookies makes the likelihood of any one particular cookie extremely low.

Think of it like there's some machine that bakes a single, random cookie. The opponent is arguing that this cookie is probably a chocolate chip cookie, whereas I am saying the sheer number of possible cookies makes this very, very unlikely. Mathematically, it makes the effective probability essentially zero.

For The Opponent

The opponent keeps saying he doesn't like math, which I imagine is a result of not being exposed to it enough to appreciate its power. I the reader understands my argument, feel free to skip this next part. This is purely for the opponent, in hopes that he can understand my argument (since it is quite mathemematical in nature.)

In my argument, I referred to a set G that contained all possible gods. My argument also implies a set P, which is of the same (infinite) size as G and which contains probabilities. To make this clear, look at this set.

There is a set D which is all possible dice rolls from a 6 sided die. It looks like this:

D = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}

There is also a set P which is the probability of each roll:

P = {1/6, 1/6, 1/6, 1/6, 1/6, 1/6}

So if we want to know the probability that D(0) [which is 1] happens, we simply look at P(0), which is 1/6. We now know the probability of a 1 rolling is 1/6. Notice that the probability of each event happening is exactly 1 over the length of D. D's length is 6, so the probability is 1 over 6, or 1/6.

Let's extend this to the god set.

G = {Zeus, God, Allah, Osiris, Sheogorath, ... , None, ..., unknown god a, unknown god b, ... }

This set is infinitely long, due to the unknown gods. So P is:

P = {1/inf, 1/inf, 1/inf, ... }

So the probability that God exists, aka the probability that G(1) exists can be found by looking at P(1), which is 1 / inf. This probability, 1 / inf, tends toward 0 and is considered to be essentially 0.

This is what my first argument is saying. In my next argument, I look at ways that we can change the set P, to make it more realistic based upon our physical world. So if there was a world where 5's could not roll, the set P for our dice scenario would be:

P = {1/5, 1/5, 1/5, 1/5, 0, 1/5}

That's what my next argument does. We will look at that now.

"God has changed my life and I know he exists."

While I do believe that you feel this way, it really doesn't do much for us in the debate. Since neither I nor my readers can experience what you have, there's really no way we can make judgements about it.

The Evolution of Man

The opponent's argument here has two essential parts. I'll look at each of these.

The origins of life: This is possibly one of the most fascinating responses to "origin of life" evolution that I have. Seen we could have a very long debate on this topic. However, so that we don't get off topic, I'll need to point out that my argument does not require us to understand the origin of life, evolutionarily.

My argument was basically this: The Bible claims that man was created in his current form by God whereas evolutionary theory, as it concerns recent life (not origins of life) shows that man did not always exist in his current form. We have found numerous direct ancestors to man.

I suppose that I am really arguing with "long-term natural selection". The specifics of the evolution from non-living to living material really isn't part of my argument. So long as I demonstrate that it is likely that man did not always exist in his current evolutionary form, my point stands. My opponent talks on this next.

The origins of man: The opponent references two books here. Let's look at the original first.

The opponent claims that he believes the book thoroughly undoes natural-selection evolution, but only brings up one experiment regarding peppered moths. In this experiment, scientists assumably attempted to quicken the life/death cycle of an insect with an already short life-space in attempts to observe some form of natural selection. While some biochemical proccesses were improved, it mostly just resulted in crippled insects.

I am not at all surprised that this experiment is being looked at with scrutiny by the author. Some important characteristics of evolution include a) extremely long periods of time and b) a diverse ecology. No scientist can effectively reproduce 100,000+ of life/death cycles in any reasonable amount of time. Even if they good, the shorter life-spans of the insects would mean their behavior would be radically different than if they led their normal life-span. What's worse, evolution usually requires a diversity of circumstances and environments to actually naturally select toward, something else missing in the experiment.

No doubt that this experiment is a bad attempt to prove evolution, but it does little to change early man fossil records that the opponent himself linked in his argument. Onto the other book.

A note to the readers: I've been responding to my opponent's argument as I've read it. I just now finished his response to evolution, which turned out to be the finish to his entire argument. This seems to be a hot topic for my opponent and I fear that it could take over the debate again in future rounds if I am not careful, so here's what I'm going to do.

I will be dropping the Evolution Argument. This is not because I believe the opponent is correct, but rather because a response to it would take up my entire 10,000 characters and miss the entire point of the debate. I will cede that there is not not enough evidene to objectively say that the evolution of man is accurate. This allows for the possibility that God did create man, but does nothing in the way of proving that.

Where Are We Now

The opponent's main argument was regarding evolution, a mere subpoint of my "changing weights" argument. Even if we drop it (which I did), we are still left with the "creation of the world" argument and the "great flood" argument. This demonstrates that the Bible made innaccurate claims, which supports the idea that we should reduce the probability that the Christian God exists.

Even if we should assume that my entire "changing weights" argument falls, we are still left with the probability of the Christian God existing at 1/inf (see my first argument.) Since 1/inf is strictly less than .5, I have upheld my burden in shows that the Christian God most likely does not exist.

Unless my opponent produces some sort of evidence showing that the Christian God is more likely to exist (thus effectively increasing the weighted probabiity of God), my original argument still stands and we are left with the same conclusion: that the Christian God most likely does not exist.

I have to apologize to the reader for following along on the evolution topic for a while before dropping it. I realized it was to the benefit of this debate to drop it only after having talked about it a while, but I couldn't bring myself to simply delete what was already there. So again:

1. Opponent needs to show evidence which effectively raises the probability of god.
2. Alternatively, opponent could refute the mathematics of my first argument.
3. Opponent needs to respond to the "creation of the world" argument and the "great flood" argument. The creation of the world argument is the most important one to hit, of the two.

I look forward to my opponent's response.


Ok, I apologize for my text being so blocked up on my last one but I used all my characters and could not add paragraphs.

First I am going to answer the one you really wanted me to. The creation of the world bit. Evidence that the Creator was involved in making the world we live in. It's very simple evidence I'm sure you all have it. A calendar! The seven day week and seventh day Sabbath testify the veracity and historicity of the creation accounts in Genesis. Do you realize there is no historical or astronomical explanation for the existence of the seven day week other than the account in genesis? Nothing! Other cultures and traditions around the world also use the seven day week. How is that explained? An interesting fact is that humans run on a seven day biorhythm. Cool huh! The coolest part is we're not the only ones, other organisms down to bacteria and even single celled animals also share this phenomena. Many nations have tried to switch the number of days the week has, they always came back to the seven day week.

Science cannot explain the seven day week. Also scientific evidence cannot become the ultimate judge of biblical interpretation or divine revelation. A simple reason is that science cannot answer the ultimate questions about life. When science is asked "How did it all begin?" we get "Probably by accident." When asked, "How will it all end?" we get "Probably by accident." An accidental life is not worth living to most. An everlasting life with Jesus is what I personally want.

Next onto the flood. I am going to start with the ark. First of all the ark was studied by a engineer named Henry Morris. Morris concluded that the stability of the ark was so great it would have to be turned completely vertical before it could be tipped. So in every way the ark designed was highly stable, very well suited for riding out the "storm of all storms" in the year of the great flood. Being flat bottomed and designed to float instead of moving through the water it had one third more carrying capacity than a ship with sloping sides of similar size. What's more is the size of this ship! The available floor space of this three floored barge was over 95.000 square feet and total volume was 1,396,000 cubic feet! The capacity equivalent to 520 modern railroad stock cars. This barge of gigantic size with its thousands of built in compartments, (Genesis 6;14) would have been sufficient to carry two of every species of air breathing animal in the world today... on only half it's available space! The remaining being occupied by Noah and his family, five additional representatives of each of the comparatively few kinds of animals acceptable for sacrifice, two of each the kinds that have since become extinct and food for them all!! (Genesis 6:21) Now on to geological evidence. A theory known as ecological zonation suggests that the order in the geological column, was established by the order in which lifeforms died and were buried in the great flood. SO the flood waters from the deep covered the simplest organisms first the ones in the soil or at the bottom of the sea, then more complex organisms. Naturally mobile creatures would flee to higher ground. also animal carcasses as well as trees and plants would float for a time and be buried later at a higher elevation. Studies have proved that a modern flash flood that extended over the earth would lay down around 400 million years of the geological column in 8.4 months! It fits well into the time frame of the genesis account.

I have more! Just keep asking me questions. I really appreciate your timely responses and apologize for my not so timely!
Debate Round No. 4


I apologize for my lengthy response. I had about 6,000 characters typed out when my browser crashed and I lost everything I had written. I took a day off to let the frustration go away.

Anywho, this is the final round! I'm just going to briefly talk about where we are now in the debate, then speak on what my opponent said last round, then finally write a conclusion demonstrating why I have won this debate.

Where We Are Now

While many interesting discussions have taken place this debate with a ton of interesting points being made on both sides, one cannot ignore the fact that the opponent has failed to adequately combat my original argument regarding probabiity. Instead, he simply dismissed it, claiming that he didn't like math. It's true that many people don't enjoy math, but that is not a justification in dropping the argument.

Based upon my first argument alone, I have won this debate round because a) it still stands and b) the opponent hasn't presented any arguments of his own in an attempt to prove that God probably does exist. Generally in a debate involving God, the person claiming his existence has full burden of proof. Being a little more lax, I decided to make this burden shared. Despite this, the opponent has not made any compelling arguments that would lead us to believe that God probably exists.

I could end this debate here and now saying this alone -- however my thorough nature urges me to respond to my opponent's arguments last round for the sake of hitting all his counter claims and because he brought up a super interesting point.

The Opponent's Arguments

The Creation of the World: My argument on this specific topic originally began with me claiming that our scientific understanding of how the world came to be is in direct conflict with the Biblical claim of how the world came to be. This discredits the Bible, making the likelihood of God existing diminish. My opponent's argument really doesn't address this.

He claims that the fact that Biblical creation took 7 days and the fact that we still use the 7 day week implies that the creation story has merits. This is simply false. Time for a bit of history.

Around 500 BC Babylonian astrologists started to officially define the term "week" as 7 days long. Their reasoning for doing this was so that the week would directly correspond with various phases of the lunar cycle. Specifically, even 4 weeks (a month) it was expected that the moon would complete one full lunar cycle. This was a very logical decision (based upon their knowledge of astronomy at that time) as weeks of different lengths did not well correspond with the lunar cycles, a hugely important phenomenon for people of that time.

Since then, this 7 day week idea has been adopted across many cultures and religions. Interestingly enough, the names "Monday, Tuesday, etc." are named after Greek gods. (This is not apparent unless you look at the actual Greek name for said Gods, at which point the correspondance is quite clear.)

Because the 7 day week was very popular around the time Genesis was actually written, it's not suprising at all that Genesis also adopted this format. In reality, we do not have a 7 day week because of the Bible, but rather the Bible has a 7 day week because that was already the standard at the time.

As for my opponent's claim that an "accidental" life is not worth living, I have to personally disagree. (This point isn't really relevant to the debate, but I feel it must be said.) One doesn't need a god to exist in order to have meaning in life. In a world without god, we have the freedom to define our own meaning for living. It may be helping others or succeeding, or discovering something new. Whatever it is, many atheists live very fulfillied lives without the belief that a god exists, simply because meaning comes from within.

The Great Flood: Here the opponent talks about two things. First, the viability of an ark and second, geological evidence.

On his first point, it is indeed quite possible that the ark described in the Bible was a well designed ship. At the time Genesis was written, the only way to cross the sea was on boats made of wood. It is not surprising to learn that, at a result, the people of that time were very knowledgeable on crafting boats. A good historical analogue for this is the society that built the Stonehenge. The particular elements that went in to building that surpass even our modern day understanding. We don't know how this society managed to move such large stones such a long distance. However, at the time those people had access to lesser technologies and thus developed those technologies in such a way to accomplish goals in ways that we cannot. Same goes for ship-building around the time of Genesis.

Additionally, the fact that the ark could work at a theoretical level does not prove that it was ever built, much less does it prove that a Flood actually occurred.

His second point is about geological evidence. He essentially claims that if a flood happened, it would be geologically evident. And I totally agree. If you'll look at my original argument, you'll see that I mentioned this exact point. I additionally presented evidence that looked at our geological situation and it concluded that a Great Flood simply did not happen. The opponent makes a good point, but it unfortunately is a point that supports my argument.


I made an argument based upon probability and demonstrated that, on a general level, it is very unlikely that the Christian God exists. I expanded upon this in my second argument, which looked at the inconsistencies in the Bible, as they compare to our current scientific understanding of what actually happened. In doing this, I demonstrated that these very significant errors in the Bible discredit it, which further lowers the probability that God exists.

The opponent did not very well combat these arguments. The only argument that came up a draw in this debate was the evolution argument, but that argument was only a very small part of my entire case. The fact that it came up a wash does not in any way break my case.

It should be clear to the voter that I have demonstrated here that it is not probable that the Christian God exists. Not only is the probability of God existing below 50%, but the probability is very, very low.

Vote Pro.


Well a tad bit aggressive this last round huh? That's okay you have a right to be since I have the last say in the matter. I am utterly upset that you say I haven't raised the probability that there is a God one bit! After all I got you too agree and your words in round four were "However...I'll assume that there probably is only one god" That ends your debate on how you feel on the probability point.

You dropped the evolution point therefore you must have some doubts on your ability to raise the probability that theory of evolution is correct. as I said anytime you want to argue about evolution I'm the man!
Here is some quotes that prove that there is no set reason for the seven day week.
"At first glance, it might seem that weekly rhythms developed in response to the seven day week imposed by human culture thousands of years ago. However, this theory doesn"t hold once you realize that plants, insects, and animals other than humans also have weekly cycles. . . . Biology, therefore, not culture, is probably at the source of our seven day week."

Susan Perry and Jim Dawson, The Secrets Our Body Clocks Reveal, (New York: Rawson Associates, 1988), pp. 20-21

"Franz Halberg proposes that body rhythms of about seven days, far from being passively driven by the social cycle of the calendar week, are innate, autonomous, and perhaps the reason why the calendar week arose in the first place" These circaseptan, or about weekly, rhythms are one of the major surprises turned up by modern chronobiology. Fifteen years ago, few scientists would have expected that seven day biological cycles would prove to be so widespread and so long established in the living world. They are of very ancient origin, appearing in primitive one-celled organisms, and are thought to be present even in bacteria, the simplest form of life now existing."

Jeremy Campbell, Winston Churchill"s Afternoon Nap, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1986), pp. 75-79.

The endogenous nature of the about weekly (circaseptan) rhythms is shown by their occurrence in animals kept under laboratory conditions precluding circaseptan periodic input, their appearance as circaseptan reaction pattern after noxious stimuli, or introduction of an antigen, and in human subjects by the observation of their free running (rhythms that are not synchronized to environmental time cues) with a frequency different from the calendar week. It appear that our seven-day week, which is found in many ancient and modern civilizations including the three main monotheistic religions, may be an adaptation to an endogenous biologic rhythm rather than the rhythm being a societally impressed phenomenon.

" Erhard Haus, Chronobiology in the Endocrine System, Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 59 (2007) 985-1014

I rest my case there is not set reason for the seven day week. Nobody knows where it came from and the matter itself is debatable. Moses wrote the book of genesis and of course the week was seven days long because that's what God instructed it should be!

The flood. You say I'm supporting you in this? Read again. Perhaps you only skimmed. Read what I wrote before saying I support you. I'm also saying that the boat is possible and with all the geological evidence it is most likely that a flood happened. I could understand you being upset since you lost your poor 6000 word response to a mysterious occurrence but don't you dare say I haven't combated your arguments effectively! Read everything! I have. It is your duty. This is a debate!

I personally believe that my debater was way out of his league and next time I will chose a debate more up to my standards! I am sure the voters will vote for the better debate! My name is Brian N. Johnson and I thank you for your time!
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.