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

Is there 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Gebcrafter has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/3/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 166 times Debate No: 95178
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




I think there couldnt possibly be a god. I find it funny how 4 drunk jews wrote a book and it got a little carried away. If there was a god, he would show a sign of some sort. Life would be so much simpler not having to constantly follow a set of ungoverned rules set by the eternal fairy man.


I thank Con for the opportunity for this debate. I wish Con the best of luck in supporting their position.

The topic of the debate revolves around whether or not a god exists. Con’s first round argument can be divided into several segments. Pro will address each segment of Con’s round #1 argument while providing argument in favor of the existence of a god. The several parts of the argument are taken individually as follows: A., A god is not a possibility; B., A book written by four drunk Jews is funny and a little carried away; C., If a god existed he would show a sign; D., Life would be simple without the need to follow a set of ungoverned rules;, E., These rules are set by the eternal fairy man.

A. l In this part Pro contends it is impossible that there be a god, any god. The concept generically of god is the concept of a first cause. That there must be a first cause cannot logically be disputed. Every created thing was created by something outside itself. Otherwise, it is not created. The thing that always was, the thing that was not created, the thing that is eternal, whatever it is, is the first cause. (1) If it is uncomfortable to call it a god, perhaps it is easier for Con to refer to this first cause as matter, or light, or the the universe. Whatever you accept as the thing that always was, is just a longer way of saying ‘a god’. This expounding of the very rational ideal that all created things must lead back to an uncreated thing was done by some of the greatest minds of history, to which those who believe there is not a god there is no rational answer, but only scoffing at what is.

B. Con claims a book written by four drunken Jews got a little carried away. With all the books which have been written to date, this is a distinct possibility, but it has not been demonstrated which, if any, book Con is referring to, nor has evidence of the drunkenness, Judaism, or carrying away of the contents of such a book been demonstrated.

C. “If a god existed he would show a sign”. Here is an example of denying all of the history which does not fit into Con’s premise. Con does not find it a sign that we inhabit a planet with the correct proportions chemical components within it and in its atmosphere to support life, and that being intelligent life. He does not think it a sign that this one planet containing the elements to support life happens to be in the proper orbit at the proper speed which keeps it from either falling into or away from a star of the proper gravitational pull, heat, and light source to maintain life. He does not think it a sign that with all the alleged evolution of all things, one and only one life form, mankind, managed to become self aware and capable of acquiring and accumulating knowledge to pass on beyond themselves. The problem is not the lack of signs. It is the determination to ignore them, as has always been: “And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, asking him a sign from heaven, tempting him. And sighing deeply in spirit, he saith: Why doth this generation seek a sign? Amen, I say to you, a sign shall not be given to this generation. And leaving them, he went up again into the ship, and passed to the other side of the water. And they forgot to take bread; and they had but one loaf with them in the ship. And he charged them, saying: Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.

And they reasoned among themselves, saying: Because we have no bread. Which Jesus knowing, saith to them: Why do you reason, because you have no bread? do you not yet know nor understand? have you still your heart blinded? Having eyes, see you not? and having ears, hear you not? neither do you remember. When I broke the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took you up? They say to him, Twelve. When also the seven loaves among four thousand, how many baskets of fragments took you up? And they say to him, Seven.

And he said to them: How do you not yet understand? And they came to Bethsaida; and they bring to him a blind man, and they besought him that he would touch him. And taking the blind man by the hand, he led him out of the town; and spitting upon his eyes, laying his hands on him, he asked him if he saw any thing. And looking up, he said: I see men as it were trees, walking. After that again he laid his hands upon his eyes, and he began to see, and was restored, so that he saw all things clearly.”

D. Life would be simple without the need to follow a set of ungoverned rules-this is the reason for the denial of logical, rational thinking which leads to the knowledge that there is a god, i.e., the desire to be unbound by any rules of behavior. In this, Con merely shows his irrational motivation for his beliefs. Pro will not attempt to explain the notion of ‘ungoverned rules’ and will leave that to Con at his good pleasure.

E. The ungoverned rules are alleged by Con to be set by the eternal fairy man. This is an unsourced claim, however Pro would reiterate that the name we give to the first cause is not relevant to this debate.

Pro argues based on the above reasoning that there is a god.

Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Throwback 1 month ago
@proatheist, at least geb had the guts to formally debate, and you are polite while disagreeing. Missmedic displays neither positive quality.
Posted by TheProAtheist 1 month ago
I am personally an atheist, but I'm gonna have to go with the guy who's saying there might be one. I'm sorry, but honestly Geb, your argument is extremely weak. You seem to be trying more to insult the religion than you are to state any valid points, such as the lack of scientific evidence. The big bang theory. Evolution.
Posted by Throwback 1 month ago
You always have the opportunity to set up a debate in order to properly defend yourself, rather than posting comments which are not evaluated by third parties. Just a thought to the endless commentary from those unwilling to be confronted.
Posted by missmedic 1 month ago
What does it mean to exist? What would it mean if "God exists" were a meaningful proposition? For such a proposition to mean anything at all, it would have to entail that whatever "God" is, it must have some impact on the universe. In order for us to say that there is an impact on the universe, then there must be measurable and testable events which would best or only be explained by whatever this "God" is we are hypothesizing. Believers must be able to present a model of the universe in which some god is "either required, productive, or useful."

This is obviously not the case. Many believers work hard trying to find a way to introduce their god into scientific explanations, but none have succeeded. No believer has been able to demonstrate, or even strongly suggest, that there are any events in the universe which requires some alleged "god" to explain. Instead, these constantly failing attempts end up reinforcing the impression that there is no "there" there " nothing for "gods" to do, no role for them to play, and no reason to give them a second thought. It's technically true that the constant failures don't mean that no one will ever succeed, but it's even more true that in every other situation where such failures are so consistent, we don't acknowledge any reasonable, rational, or serious reason to bother believing.
Posted by vi_spex 1 month ago
i am here
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.