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

It is probable that God exists

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: 7/3/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 661 times Debate No: 24538
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




I am new to this site, so I am not really familiar with the customs and formats used for presenting arguments and rebuttals, but I'll try to put it straight forward.

My argument is that the existence of a supreme being is possible and probable. I will use the term "God" to refer to an intelligent, omnipotent and omniscient entity, not necessarily the god of Christianity or any other pre-established deity. This is an argument of plausibility rather than certainty; I defend the idea of the possibility that God exists, against the possibility that God does not exist, posing the later as less probable.
First round is for acceptance.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting my challenge, I hope we can get the most of it.

First, let me state the Kalam Cosmological Argument:
Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
The universe has a beginning of its existence;
Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence.

The first postulate of the argument states that all existence results from a cause. American philosopher William Lane Craig defines this postulate as "intuitively obvious, based on the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being from nothing." Furthermore, modern science has not proved nor observed an event where something comes from nothing. We know for a fact things exist, so following this progression in regress we eventually reach a "first cause" that has no cause itself. This First Cause corresponds to the mentioned concept of "God" because of three reasons:

It is omnipotent because the entity has the power to create itself and the universe, meaning the entity can simultaneously exist at two different times and ignore physical and metaphysical laws.
It is intelligent because the universe it created shows a purposeful and conscious design.
It is omniscient because, being the creator and designer of the universe, it is the source of all truths, logic and knowledge.

Having said this, I accept the possibility that the First Cause responsible for the existence of the universe may not be a supreme being, but a natural conscience-less physical cause. Nonetheless I have to say this is highly improbable, and I will proceed to demonstrate.
If the First Cause is a naturally occurring event inside the boundaries of the physical world, the First Cause must be governed by such laws. Having something create itself from nothing implies breaking physical principles like Thermodynamics or Matter Conservation.
So, the existence of the universe is best explained by a supreme being that is, by nature, exempt of all physical and logical laws, rather than by a natural phenomena that "somehow" occurs previously and independently of such laws.
Theorizing in favor of a natural First Cause that does not abide to the physical laws known to man implies a remote possibility. It is also pointless to propose a First Cause caused by gravity and other forces (as Hawking proposed), because we don't take into consideration the origin of such forces.

To reinforce my argument that the universe was created by a sentinel conscience I will appeal to the following claim:
"The universe exhibits purposeful, intelligent design."
Cells have complex functions that respond to particular needs. The Krebs and Calvin cycles are examples of these complex and purposeful functions. While it is true that evolution accounts for the design of modern living organisms, we need to analyze the nature of evolution. Some intelligence is required to solve any problem; when an organism encounters an unsuitable environment and changes to overcome it, the problem-solution methodology is being applied, and since the organism's mind takes no part in this process, it is safe to assume an intelligent creator has designed evolution to occur naturally.
Again, it is possible for an aleatory phenomenum to result in an orderly and purposeful fashion but, again, it is unlikely and the odds favor sentinel design over randomness.


Deathbeforedishonour forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Since my opponent forfeited the round and I'm not sure about the common protocol for the case, I will proceed to extend my argument. I will expose several common arguments that could have been used by my opponent to discredit my argument:
  • "The argument from inconsistent revelations contests the existence of the deity called God as described in scriptures—such as the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian Bible, the Muslim Qur'an,Hindu Vedas, the Book of Mormonor the Baha'i Aqdas—by identifying apparent contradictions between different scriptures, within a single scripture, or between scripture and known facts." This argument cannot be used as evidence against my case because I am not defending the possible existence of the Christian, Muslim or Hindu god specifically, but the existence of an omnipotent deity, as previously described.
  • "The problem of evil contests the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god should not permit the existence of evil or suffering." Again, this argument is not valid against mine, for I do not define the given concept of God as benevolent. Even if I was defending the case of a benevolent and omnipotent God, the problem of evil is flawed from its very ground; for a superior being's motivations and reasoning cannot be forced into a paradigm of human logic.
  • The destiny of the unevangelized, by which persons who have never even heard of a particular revelation might be harshly punished for not following its dictates. The "God" I describe in my case is not necessarily linked to any religious dogma, including pre-destination and an afterlife, so the argument is invalid.
  • The argument from poor design contests the idea that God created life on the basis that life forms, including humans, seem to exhibit poor design. It is, in my opinion, a poor argument. I already stated on the previous round that the universe and the life it holds is finely tuned and purposefully designed to be possible. While it is true that the design is not perfect, it's nowhere near poor. Moreover, we cannot assume an omnipotent God would create a perfect universe, even if he could, because, once again, we would fall in the mistake of forcing a unknown reasoning into the frame human reasoning.
  • The argument from non belief contests the existence of an omnipotent God who wants humans to believe in him by arguing that such a god would do a better job of gathering believers. Nowhere do I mention "a God who wants humans to believe in him", so the argument falls out of place.
Source: Wikipedia, Existence of God(s)

I have exposed several common arguments, and most of them are against the god of a religion. I, maintaining a metaphysical rather than religious concept of God in my argument, find them unsuited. I'm looking forward to my opponent to give me some argument discrediting the concept of god I stated in the first round, so I can prepare a proper rebuttal for the next round.


Deathbeforedishonour forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Since my argument is based on probability, I will appeal of Occam's Razor to demonstrate God's existence is more probable than God's in existence. Occam's Razor is a principle that urges one to select the simpler hypothesis, or the one that requires least assumptions.

My thesis: An omnipotent being created the universe.

For this to be true, one has to assume an omnipotent being can exist. Once this assumption has been made, any subsequent effect is possible, for an omnipotent being can act outside the borders of physical and logical laws.

The antithesis: The universe was not created by an omnipotent being.

Since we don't have a certain explanation for the origin of the universe, this claim has to be supported by different hypothesis, the most common being the Big Bang Theory. The theory itself is based on two assumptions: the universality of physical laws and the isotropic, homogeneous nature of the universe. Nevertheless, The Big Bang does not enter in direct conflict with my thesis and has pretty strong evidence to be supported but it is possible that God created the singularity that gave rise to the Big Bang, so I will focus on the assumptions that need to be done to make the universe possible without an omnipotent God.

      • Time is finite. The best way to explain a universe that does not require God is to assume time began with the Big Bang (or at some other point). If we do not make this assumption, we can trace back time in regress to and before the Planck Epoch meaning something had to exist before the Big Bang in order to trigger it.

      • The laws of nature exist outside of time. Since we are assuming time is finite, we cannot talk about an origin of natural laws. Quantum mechanics and quantum gravity are vital if we want consider a universe without God. So we have to assume it is possible for natural laws to exist prior to time (however that makes sense).

      • Thermodynamics can be neglected. If we take into consideration that "energy cannot be created or destroyed", an explanation of the universe from a physical perspective is impossible, so we need to assume energy began to exist in order to trigger the Big Bang.

      • Relativity and M theories are correct. In Hawking' s model of the universe, both of these theories (which are theories, not laws) must be correct, otherwise, the model fails.

Furthermore, not only is it necessary for this events to occur in such manner, but absolutely neglecting the intervention of God in some part of the process results quite hard, as was noted by physicist Gerald Schroeder: "The Grand Design breaks the news, bitter to some, that … to create a universe from absolute nothing God is not necessary. All that is needed are the laws of nature. … [That is,] there can have been a big bang creation without the help of God, provided the laws of nature pre-date the universe. Our concept of time begins with the creation of the universe. Therefore if the laws of nature created the universe, these laws must have existed prior to time; that is the laws of nature would be outside of time. What we have then is totally non-physical laws, outside of time, creating a universe. Now that description might sound somewhat familiar. Very much like the biblical concept of God: not physical, outside of time, able to create a universe."

Apart from these key assumptions, the non-deistic approach to the origin of the universe takes for granted
human knowledge up to date is correct, not to mention it requires a strict Anthropic view of the universe and reality.
While it is true that several problems arise with the deistic creation of the universe, they are all solved once we accept an omnipotent being to which no laws can be applied. The same is not true for the opposite approach. As we have seen, many major assumptions (some even contradictory) have to be made to fit the universe into a pseudo-physical and non deistic viewpoint.

Source: Wikipedia.


Deathbeforedishonour forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


I have given reasons to believe God's existence is probable. The basis of my argument is that it's simpler to believe in an omnipotent being than to formulate a complex scientific hypothesis that requires many assumptions. The existence of life and a purposeful universe contributes to my argument, serving as evidence of conscience involved in the creation of the universe.

I know my arguments were not strong, specially in the third and fourth rounds, but I was prepared for a back-and-forth debate, in which I would focus on replying to arguments rather than posting new ones. Since my opponent forfeited the debate, he left me in a position where I wasn't able to give proper rebuttals, so I had to somehow strengthen my argument without the existence of counter-arguments.

Having said this, I hope you voters have found my points compelling enough, and I look forward to an actual debate in the future.


Deathbeforedishonour forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by ADT_Clone 4 years ago
Ahh props to me for not reading the last sentence.

Good luck!
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
The debate is based on probability more then absolutes.
Posted by ADT_Clone 4 years ago
Good luck to anyone who takes con, will be a hard debate. To prove God is not possible within our universe wouldnt be hard, but an omnipotent being could well exist outside our universe. Considering noone has ever observed knowingly outside our universe, it is impossible to prove that it is an impossibility God exists outside our universe.

This debate is a bit pointless in my opinion, its like saying is there a possibility that a galaxy sized live super mario man is possible. Even if you acknowledge it is possible, you learn nothing new and it doesnt help you percieve things any better, it just becomes a strawman for the picking.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by thett3 4 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 Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit by the Con.