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

It is likely that a God or gods exist

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 645 times Debate No: 73767
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




This is my first debate on

I am not interested in a semantic debate. By God or gods, I do not refer to a specific monotheistic Judeo-Christian conception of God. Rather, I use a more general, commonplace definition in which gods are either supernatural creators of the universe or even simply supernatural entities that are responsible for a specific aspect of the universe (for example, Poseidon is the god of the ocean, or Mars is the god of war). That is not to say that God cannot possess attributes such as being omnipotent or omniscient or omnibenevolent. Rather, Pro does not necessarily need to establish both that the creator of the universe exists and that he possesses characteristics ascribed to him by Judeo-Christian theologians and philosophers.

Both Pro and Con share the burden of proof.

Round 1 is for acceptance only.


Thanks. I accept
Debate Round No. 1


I thank Furyan5 for accepting this debate. I present three arguments in order to affirm the resolution. These arguments are the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Fine-Tuning Argument, and the Argument from Religious Experience.

Kalam Cosmological Argument

This argument can be formulated in the following way.
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe had a cause of its existence.

The first premise is very obvious to just about anyone. Our practical experience confirms that things do not pop into existence out of nothing. Moreover, for something to come out of nothing is metaphysically impossible. Nothing has no properties. Also, if universes could pop into existence out of nothing, why doesn"t anything and everything pop into being out of nothing with no cause? We do not see horses pop into existence in our living rooms. Due to both metaphysical and empirical reasons, the first premise seems very plausible.

Hence, the crucial premise is the second premise. Some nonbelievers claim that the universe has an infinite past and has never began to exist. However, the premise that the universe began to exist can be found in any science textbook. According to the Big Bang Theory, the universe began approximately 13.7 billion years ago.

Moreover, the second law of thermodynamics provides proof that the universe cannot have an infinite past. According to the UC Davis Chemwiki, the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of the universe, as a closed isolated system, "will always increase over time" [1]. Moreover, the second law states that changes in entropy in the universe "can never be negative" [1]. If the universe never began to exist, it would have an infinite past. However, if the past was infinite, then the entropy in the universe by now would be so great that life would be unable to exist. Since life does exist, the universe must have had a beginning a finite time ago.

Moreover, the very notion of an infinite past is metaphysically impossible. This is because the idea that an infinite number of things can actually exist is metaphysically impossible. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Mathematics gives contradictory answers. In truth, while the notion of potential infinity is useful in mathematics, the concept of an actual infinity is metaphysical nonsense. This suggests that rather than there being an infinite past, the universe must have a finite past and hence must have begun to exist.

Given premises 1 and 2, the conclusion that the universe has a cause of its existence naturally follows. Since the universe consists of all time, space, and matter, the creator of the universe must be timeless, spaceless, powerful, and immaterial. Moreover, the cause of the universe must also be personal. This is due to several reasons, but here is one of them. The only things that can possess timelessness and immateriality that we know of are abstract objects and disembodied, supernatural minds. But abstract objects cannot cause anything. Therefore, the cause of the universe must be a disembodied mind, a supernatural creator of the universe which qualifies as a god.

The Fine-Tuning Argument (Argument from Design)

Physicists commonly agree that the universe is "fine-tuned" for the conditions of life. Many constants in the universe are fine-tuned for life in the sense that if these constants were very very slightly changed, intelligent life could never exist. To give an example, physicist Luke Barnes says that the amount of matter in the initial stage of our universe is fine-tuned to one part in 10^55 [2]. That is a 1 followed by 55 zeros! And that is just one of numerous examples.

This form of the teleological argument works by using the fine-tuning of the universe as evidence of design. It can be formulated as follows.
1.The fine-tuning of the universe is the result of law, chance, or design.
2.The fine-tuning of the universe is not the result of law or chance.
3.Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is the result of design.

The chance that the universe is fine-tuned by accident is almost zero. And no law of the universe seems to suggest that the cosmological constants need to be the way they are. That means that the fine-tuning must be due to design. But that implies that there is a designer of the universe, quite possibly one who was interested in creating life. Since such a designer would be timeless, spaceless, powerful, and immaterial, that creator would fulfill the qualifications of a god as we know it.

Argument from Religious Experiences

Many people are theists due to the cosmological argument and the argument from design. However, many people are also theists for an additional reason- religious experiences. Throughout human history up to the present day, most cultures have had a concept of religion and gods. According to the Pew Research Center, today more than 80% of people in the world belong to a religious group [3]. For a few of these people, God"s existence may simply be a comparatively abstract fact about reality, in the way that "there are seven days in a week" is a comparatively abstract fact. However, for a large proportion of believers, their belief in God or gods is much more than a simple abstract fact. They believe that they have or have had real religious experiences. Some Christians call such experiences "bearing witness to the holy spirit." Likewise, people of practically all religions report knowing that God or gods exist due to feeling the inner presence of a divine being.

This fact can be awkward for a naturalist. For on naturalism, there is no reason to expect that people would have any religious experiences at all. If God or gods do not exist, why should people have such powerful, moving experiences? If theism is true, there is a very straightforward explanation, namely that God or gods exist. The atheist, however, is hard-pressed to come up with any explanation for why people have religious experiences. Unless atheists can provide a compelling explanation for religious experiences, they will be hard-pressed to convince anyone who believes that they feel the presence of the divine in their daily lives. So my opponent must provide a naturalistic explanation for religious experience in order to give the atheistic worldview any credibility at all.

The atheist might object to this argument, questioning the validity of religious experience due to the apparent contradictions between the doctrines of different religions. In response, the atheist would do well to consider the parable of the elephant and the blind men. In the parable, blind men touch different parts of the elephant and come to greatly different conclusions about the nature of the elephant. This story serves as a useful metaphor to explain religious pluralism and defend against the atheist"s objection. Just because people claim different things about the nature of the Divine does not mean that the Divine is not real. It simply means that people interpret religious experiences differently, rather than meaning that gods (the elephant in the parable) do not exist.


In conclusion, I have presented three arguments for the existence of God or gods. They are the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Fine-Tuning Argument, and the Argument from Religious Experience. If my opponent wishes to show that atheism is true, he must refute all three of these arguments and construct his own positive case for atheism. I again thank Furyan5 for accepting this debate.

[4] A version of the parable may be found at


Before I start, let me apologise. You probably have your strategy all worked out for the next 3 rounds. I will argue that its illogical to assume a god exists just because we dnt know what caused the universe. Not to mention the existance of a causeless being which creates its own set of improbabilities. As for fine tuning.... so what is the rest of the universe? Background noise? Created so we can see stars? And what's the deal with dinosaurs???? God created an entire species just so there decomposed bodies could supply us with petrolium? Lastly you bring up religious experiences. Many people have experiences they cant explain. So their minds try to give meaning to it. Some pick aliens. Some ghosts. But most choose religion as the majority of people are religious.... in return I will throw the paradoxes the existance of such a being would create. You'll say possible, I'll say not...

Been there, done that....not interested.

Lets go a different route. NOT SEMANTICS.

You claim a God or Gods created the universe.

For what purpose?
For us to worship him/them? Why would an immortal need us to worship him? wouldn't we be more likely to worship god if he showed himself? It doesn't make sense.

Winning this debate is not important to me. I concede.
Dnt bother pointing out that I'm not following the rules. You already win. Lets just debate. What is our purpose?
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent graciously concedes the debate to me. Nevertheless, my opponent made a couple brief claims, so I feel compelled to answer them.

In response to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, my opponent concedes that the universe had a cause of its existence. My opponent claims that it is illogical to assume that God was the cause, but I gave an argument for God being the cause, which he never responded to! He also claims that a causeless being is problematic, but I have established that the God or gods who created the universe never began to exist. Hence, they do not violate premise one of the argument; they do not necessarily require a cause of their existence.

There is practically no response to the Fine-Tuning Argument other than questions on why the dinosaurs were there before humans. I am not defending a specific religion, and I see no reason how the answer to that question would undermine the fine-tuning argument.

Again, my opponent gives very little response to the Argument from Religious Experiences. He does nothing to show how on atheism we would expect people to have religious experiences at all. Nor does he give any reason to believe that they are the result of aliens or that the experiences are in any way not veridical.

His only attempts at arguments against the existence of God or gods consist in mere questions. Different religions give different answers to these questions. Since I am not defending a particular religion, I see no reason to address them in this debate. I am happy to talk to my opponent about such things through private messaging, however.

My opponent graciously concedes the debate to me. VOTE PRO.
Debate Round No. 3


Arguments extend. My opponent concedes the debate to me. VOTE PRO.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Furyan5 3 years ago
Lets talk here. The more people involved, the more likely a resolution can be reached. No science. No semantics. Why were we created?
Posted by orangutan 3 years ago
Nuzlocke4, perhaps you would like to have a similar debate with me. If you are right, you should score an easy win.

Usernamesareannoying, I see no reason why I should restrict myself to a very narrow, rigid, theologian definition for the Christian God. A definition like "maximally great being" simply isn't relevant to the vast majority of believing Christians, much less non-Christians. If "maximally great being" is the only "philosophically accepted" definition of God, then philosophy of religion is very very much biased towards one culture and one religion. Moreover, having a concept of God that is too rigid leaves one open to word games that try to show that that particular conception of God is impossible. That's why I have chosen to defend a broader definition of God in this debate.
Posted by Furyan5 3 years ago
I agree with you. The universe doesn't need a creator to exist. And we can't prove he exists or doesn't. What makes you so sure he doesn't?

Also view by an athiest in case you think its more religious mumbi jumbo. See what the odds are of you being here by random luck.

Then come back here and admit its not really that stupid.
Posted by Nuzlocke4 3 years ago
This is so stupid. A God most likely does not exist. The universe does not need a creator to exist, just like people do not need a god to be good. God is a unfalsifiable hypothesis , meaning you cannot disprove him because he does not exist. For example, I levitate when no one is looking. Can't disprove that, you also cannot disprove that I am not God.
Posted by Furyan5 3 years ago
Lol. So my mom is god?
Posted by usernamesareannoying 3 years ago
If you want to argue what you said you do, use the philosophical definition: 'the greatest being that can be conceived".
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by m4j0rkus4n4g1 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro clearly was willing to work harder for this debate. Pro's arguments were not well-founded and included many claims that had no backing or evidence (Physicists agreeing about the fine-tuning theory, Luke Barnes quote, etc.) or were plain incorrect, such as his moronic argument against infinity. Nevertheless, Pro put forth effort, effort which Con was not willing to match. Pro's arguments remain unrefuted in this debate, Pro articulated the arguments better, and Pro used sources.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 3 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by Con. Good conduct by both participants.