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

Is it reasonable to believe in a God

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: 3/21/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,387 times Debate No: 49640
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




It is more reasonable to believe that a higher being that transcends mankind and is eternal exists than to not exist. Starting with a simple introduction in first section.

1. The cosmological argument, shows that every effect within time must have a cause.
2. The universe has intricate design, inbuilt information that needs a transcendent mind.
3. There are moral absolutes which require a moral law giver that transcends human thought


This is just a brief reply to pro's starting points, before he fully explains his point.

1. I would say that the cosmological argument doesn't show that every effect within time must have a cause, it assumes it. There is no reason why the universe must have a first cause. It could be a case of infinite regress, whereby there is no start.

2. We cannot know how well the universe is designed, as we have nothing to compare it to. For all we know, it could be terribly designed, but as it is all we have known, we assume it is intricate and well-designed.

3. That's a pretty big assumption to make with no evidence. I would say that morality is more relative than absolute.I think that an action can be right or wrong according to the situation, and can understand why someone may even prefer a different option. Of course this is hardly a proof of relative ethics, but I don't think this point can be sufficiently proven either way.
Debate Round No. 1


1. God as first cause

Is it more reasonable to suggest that everything that comes into existence must have a cause? I say the human experience shows us that we know that everything that exists has a cause, we know this. It is not the God of the gaps, we actually know that everything has a cause. Check out the law of cause and effect. The big bang theory shows us that the universe did have a beginning in the finite past. My opponent can jump around but he needs to give us an example of something that does not have cause for his position to be more reasonable. So in essence the question is which is more reasonable to believe from what we do know of the universe? That things pop into existence totally without a cause and totally out of nothing or do we experience the law of cause and effect? For my opponents position to be more reasonable he needs to give an example of something that popped into existence, and totally without a cause. He has not done so yet. As for infinite regress into the past, that defies the big bang theory itself and my opponent finds himself on the fringe of reason. No one believes in a created God, no one stated there was a created God, Deists believe in an eternal God, that transcends time, space and matter. If something transcends time ie God. You cannot attach the label created, began, etc etc because those terms are subject to time. So the statement about infinite regress is fallacious as it changes the very definition of God. So essentially I ask you the question, is it more reasonable to believe that everything came into existence totally without a cause, totally out of nothing and for no reason at all?

2. Information and design

We marvel at the space shuttle and the hundreds of minds involved and information that created a space shuttle, yet the human cell is more complex than a space shuttle in regards to information, DNA and design. Is it reasonable to suggest that the space shuttle just created itself with no external designer or mind involved? BANG it just existed in all its complexity, is this truly a reasonable statement to make about a space shuttle? Why would you then say that something far more complex than a space shuttle had no design? Look at the human cell sometime, thousands of them fit onto the end of a sewing needle, with more information in one cell than a space shuttle. Is this truly a reasonable theory? We know that information requires a mind, we don't think that the dictionary BANG popped into existence without any author? This is not a reasonable statement. Your very own DNA if it were written down, would have enough information to fill a stack of books to the moon and back 11 times, is it reasonable from what we know to say that this information came from nowhere, no one "wrote" it. I suggest it is far more reasonable to say information had a author.

3. Moral Standard

I would like to know if my opponent thinks that raping, torturing and maiming little children just for fun is always morally wrong? Just to clarify, when i say ALWAYS I mean, in every culture, in all of time, in all places and no matter what anyone else says. Is it always wrong to rape and torture babies for fun? If it is we have a absolute moral law, just one will be enough to require a moral "prescriber" I would ask my opponent who or what that prescriber is? Is it the state? Is it a world consensus? Is it majority rules? Just so I do not create a strawman argument and tear it down, I would like my opponent to answer this moral question above clearly. Is it always wrong to rape and torture babies for fun?


1. I would accept that most things seem to have a cause. However, that could be the human mind forming connections were there are in fact none. Also, if we delve into quantum theory, there are a few example of things that do in fact pop out of nothing, with no cause. For example, quantum fluctuations in a vacuum are in fact the temporary appearance of energetic particles from empty space, an effect which has no cause.

2. In terms of the spaceship example, I would say that the spaceship is built for a specific purpose, as is the dictionary, and so must be designed. However, there is no evidence that the universe has such a specific purpose, so there need not be a designer. The complexity of human DNA is explained by evolution and requires no outside designer. Complexity gives organisms a higher chance of survival, so it stands to reason that as time went on, organisms would become more and more complex, culminating in the DNA of humans.

3. I cannot see how you would prove that such a thing as absolute morality exists. You can say that no-one would condone rape and torture of infants, yet this still happens, and I can imagine people who would believe there was nothing wrong with it. In fact, given the wildly different opinions surrounding pretty much every ethical issue, I would say that an a posteriori approach makes relativism seem the more reasonable approach.

I think that it is more reasonable not to believe in a higher being as there is no evidence of him present in our world. The lack of purpose in our universe, as well as quantum theories showing us the lack of cause in our universe makes this conclusion much more evidence-based than that such a being exists.
Debate Round No. 2


1. Vacuums are not nothing, if we ask any physicist they will agree vacuums are not nothing. I think my opponent has disregarded the very well established big bang theory. Time, space and matter had a beginning, if that is the case then where or when would we put this vacuum? Time is essentially being theorized as a fourth dimension. Time, space and matter are not "no things" they are very real and "somethings" These are all red herrings tho.

I am arguing from what we know, that is the law of cause and effect. It is more reasonable to believe in this law of cause and effect than to argue from something we dont know or better put what my opponent is presupposing. He is simply presupposing there is no cause for quantum physics without explaining why there is no cause. It appears to be circular reasoning. In stating quantum physics has no cause, would be essentially saying he knows this but doesnt know why he knows this, that is not very reasonable.

Given vacuums are not "no things" due to the fact we need somewhere to put them (space) they need to exist at some point of time, is it more reasonable to suggest that things pop into existence totally out of "no things" and totally without a cause?

2. Again my opponent is presupposing the universe has no purpose, that is circular reasoning. He brushed off the copious amounts of information in a simple cell or DNA and we all know information comes from one source and intelligent mind or being of some sort. Is it more reasonable to believe information comes from nothing or it comes from a mind. Does our human experience show us that information comes from nothing or that it comes from and intelligent source of some kind whatever that may be? My opponent has failed to address the argument of information, it is invulnerable to Darwinian attack as a simple living cell was the first organism according to Darwinian Evolution. If that is the case, then there is more information in that one cell than a space shuttle. My opponent misses my argument if he disregards this using Darwinian Evolution. Again I ask is it more reasonable from what we know to suggest that information in that first cell, came from nowhere? No intelligence? Or is it more reasonable to say "well information does most usually comes from an intelligence of some kind" Even Richard Dawkins concedes this point

3. My opponent missed my argument about a "prescriber" I agree rape and torture occurs, that is descriptive. My opponent concedes that its wrong. By what standards can he say its wrong? What if the entire universe said it was right, would it then become right? I want my opponent to answer if its ALWAYS wrong no matter what ANYONE says? The moment he says that, is the moment a moral absolute exists in his world view. Please answer the question, is it ALWAYS wrong to rape and torture babies for fun? I don't believe my opponent has the unbiased skills to answer that question clearly, he has jumped around with things like "that's not how it is" which i agree but that's merely descriptive of what we see, I want to know who prescribes, who says its ALWAYS wrong? The state? The world consensus? What if they all said it was right to rape and torture babies for fun, would it still be wrong?

If you ought to (prescription) NEVER torture and rape babies for fun, no matter what ANYONE says, then that requires a "prescriber" of some sort. I think its more reasonable to say that it is always morally wrong to torture and rape babies for fun is always wrong no matter what anyone says, if this is the case we have a moral absolute. No matter what part of the universe, no matter if everyone says its ok, it will always be wrong...


1. The idea of vacuums was not intended as a reason as to how the universe was made, it was simply intended to point out that the idea of cause and effect is not as straightforward as some might assume. Given that we have an example where there is no identifiable cause, it seems reasonable to think that not everything is ruled by cause and effect. In fact, cause and effect could very well be a human flaw in trying to understand the world. But anyway, this was only a minor point to suggest that cause and effect aren't set in stone.

2. This is where things get interesting. I can definitely say that it is NOT circular reasoning to say that it is more reasonable to think the universe has no purpose, it is a perfectly logical conclusion based on our observations of the known universe, the same basis from which you supported cause and effect. I think this video featuring Neil deGrasse Tyson amply sums up the arguments for the lack of purpose in the universe.

As to the idea of Dna being a "code" or a source of "Information", that is not what DNA actually is. People like to make real things simple to digest, so give them false attributes. The idea of DNA having a objective purpose of giving us our characteristics and traits is unreasonable. DNA is just a series of chemical reactions, which obey the same laws as a observable chemical reaction, like magnesium and oxygen. That these reactions then create proteins doesn't mean that that was their objective purpose, it is just a following of the same rules. This article explains it sufficiently:

3. This idea of an absolute morality is completely unreasonable. In my set of morals, I don't believe that torturing babies for fun is moral, a view that is shared with a majority of humans. However, there may be some people which disagree with this. So who are we to tell them that they are the ones who have got it wrong? Is it because there are more of us? But that goes against your idea of an absolute. Imagine if there was a society of aliens on a planet, who have no problem with these actions. Who are you to say that they are in the wrong, that a moral absolute is in place, and they are acting immorally. If they ask that, how would you respond? "It's a moral absolute because...errr....because people on our planet say so". You have no evidence other that our own opinion that these actions form a moral absolute.

This is why I think that believing in God is unreasonable. In the same way you cannot find any proof of a moral absolute, based on our subjective opinion, you cannot argue to a eternal , necessary being from our contingent, short-lived lives. Any "evidence" to the contrary is just our flawed way at looking at things, such as the perceived "purpose" in the universe. One only needs to look at the many contrasting theories of supernatural beings that have been presented over time to see that any attempt to reason for God is doomed to failure.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
True Ash, the Bible is incoherent and full of internal and external conflicts.
It conflicts with itself and with reality.

If there is an omniscient, omnipotent God, then it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible, since the Bible is way too idiotic to represent such a God.

Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
The Scientific method was invented by people who knew Theology and the Bible very well, they could not use the Bible to understand God, so they developed science to understand God better.
Scientific experiments were originally started by Catholic Monks, because they considered the laws of nature as God's laws and thus, they thought that if they could understand the laws of God better, they could also use this study to understand God better.
It's just happenstance that it did not lead them towards God but away from God.
That's because the laws of nature are not God's laws.
Posted by Templar81 2 years ago
As long as the definition of science remains what it is, a natural explanation of the natural world we live in. Science can never prove the existence of anything supernatural. No one used the bible lol...
Posted by Ash_RationalTheist 2 years ago
And Also Proving the existence of God on the Basis of Bible's gonna be impossible as the Bible is incoherent source.
Posted by Ash_RationalTheist 2 years ago
Im sure this Debate's gonna be ONE SIDED if PRO bases his ROUNDS on content of this link:

Existence of God proved with Scientifically
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
I'm waiting for Pro's proof of Objective Morality with baited breath.
Haven't seen any evidence of it yet myself.
Posted by Templar81 2 years ago
ok limit increased
Posted by Subutai 2 years ago
Make the character limit higher (like ~8000-10000).
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I think that belief in a personal god is reasonable, thus my tied agreements, but the belief in a Contrived God, such as that in the Bible and pushed by idiotic creationism is a different story and God. Firstly contrived sources like those of Pro's don't convince me and my knowledge of the Irrational Cosmological argument automatically started me looking for better arguments from Con, which Con achieved rather easily. Pro's arguments were obviously arguments out of ignorance, where Con's were arguments out of knowledge. There's an obvious difference in a debate. Argument out of ignorance fallacies are what apologists like William Lane Craig, excel at. Pro's source regarding Dawkins was deliberately edited, which means contrived. Con's were not. There was thus less deliberate deception in Con's Sources.