The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Nothing suggests there must be 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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 379 times Debate No: 86104
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)




Let the respondent define "God" as they believe in him/her/it.

For example, if for you "God" = "an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being of love and creation," then the topic shall be argued as

"Nothing suggests there must be an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being of love and creation."

Let's keep it clear and accessible, snappy and to the point.

To give us some meat to work with right off the bat, I'll address some common arguments for the evidence of God.

1 - "Some day, you'll realize that all of this (gestures to the world, to the universe, and to the order and majesty they display) could not have just happened by itself."

Suppose I realize that. Where should I go from there?
If I believe that something must have caused the universe, what do I know about the cause?

Should I suppose that it still exists today? Why? On what evidence?
You see, I can get to this point, and still have all my work ahead of me.

2 - "I have felt God's presence, his influence, his guidance."

Here we distinguish observation from inference. You have had powerful spiritual experiences, you have personally observed them.
To claim that their origin is supernatural, though, is an inference, not an observation.

Not all unusual or powerful human experiences can be supernatural. If I have one, how do I know if it's supernatural or just natural?

3 - "People are healed by God. Prayers are answered, miracles happen, people survive or are healed who wouldn't have otherwise."

Say the odds of recovering from a disease are one in a million. Someone recovers anyway, and people claim this as proof of God.

Well, if the odds are one in a million, it's bound to happen after a million tries, yah? Even if there is no God, one in a million things still happen every million times or so, just by chance, by statistics.
It's a world of seven billion people, and some pretty crazy one out of seven billion coincidences are bound to happen, without any supernatural intervention.

These improbable events would only be evidence for God if they happened MORE often than they should, more often than they would by chance alone.


God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient because He is existence itself. (By this I am referring to all energy and mass) Having said this, synergy is a fruit of God's power, and dissention is the absence of His power. My proof for this is in the Name of God itself which is in Hebrew YHWH or "He exists." Most do think that He created all things, based upon the normal occurences of cause and effect. Existence in other words has always existed, and it would be incorrect to think that nonexistence could ever have been in existence. Mass and energy cannot be destroyed or created but simply changes form. In reality, God is all energy and mass, fluctuating in harmony as they can change from one form into the other as the well known statement from Einstein goes, energy equals mass times the speed of light squared.
Debate Round No. 1


What does it mean to say that God "is existence?" What does it mean to say that something "is existence?"

What do you mean by "existence has always existed?" How do you know that it has always existed?

I know that our observations within the universe suggest that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Do you believe that this constraint is also true outside of or before the universe as we know it? If so, how do you know that be true?


In saying that God is existence, God is more of a place than a person, but a place with its own Will similar to that of a person. The place that is God is where all other things spring from. What it means to say existence has always existed is that nothing comes from nothing. Nothing is just that, nothing. The end. However, we are. Others are. The stars are. Also it is known to be true that existence has always existed because it exists now. As I have said, nothing springs from nothing.
Debate Round No. 2


refers to a place,
that has a will.
And this place is where everything else comes from...

So, how do you know that there is a place with a will? How do you know that it's where everything comes from?

What does it mean for a place to have a will?

Have you ever observed a "nothing" so as to determine how it works? How can you make positive statements about the nature of something you've never observed? If we had nothings to observe, maybe it'd be common knowledge that things come from them all the time.
Naturally, I couldn't say. My ignorance of the nature of nothing (having never observed it) keeps me from saying it must work that way, just as your ignorance of the nature of nothing should keep you from saying it must work another way.

"it is known to be true that existence has always existed because it exists now."

Why does the current existence of existence imply that it's always existed?

Not that I'm sure how this relates to the debate ;) Feel free to ignore the points about the "nothing/something" business if it's not relevant.


First, everything doesn't come from God, everything is God. God is existence itself. Also, it can be known that God has a Will from the balance of things, and even life itself as well as the metaphysical and physical balance within.

Even bringing up a statement that there is or ever could be "a nothing" shows ignorance toward what I actually meant when referring to nothing. Nothing does not exist, and never could exist by its definition. That is my point. Many believe that there was once nothing outside of a singularity in the Big Bang Theory. The point is that nothing cannot be something.

By the things directly observed, it is possible to understand what is not directly observed. For example a chess board set up with all its pieces is observed. The game's outcome is not known, but based upon each possible move, we can see possible outcomes.

The bottom line is that everything has always been everything by its definition. Nothing will never be anything by its definition, and life must spring from life by its definition. In the end, it doesn't matter what you believe or question. The only thing that matters is what exists as God is existence.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ssadi 8 months ago
I missed it :(
Posted by ViceRegent 8 months ago
Other than reality.
Posted by ssadi 8 months ago
Extend the posting arguments period to 72 hours (3 days), I will accept it!
Posted by Bound_Up 8 months ago
Hey, MagicAintReal, I'm going to make a new one like this if you want to join that one.
Posted by MagicAintReal 8 months ago
Tell airmax to reset the debate.
Posted by JOHNCENA1738 8 months ago
My apologies but I did not mean to accept this.
Posted by MagicAintReal 8 months ago
Posted by MagicAintReal 8 months ago
nope, just ddo, but I will be accpeting this debate if you're not going to add a definition, is that cool?
Posted by Bound_Up 8 months ago
Oh, I don't mind.
If whatever they define actually exists, why shouldn't they believe in it?

Do you use other venues for debate?
Posted by MagicAintReal 8 months ago
Take it from me (I have probably had the most god debates on this site...check my debates if you wish) you should put an explicit definition of god in your round 1, because without one, you're left with whatever your opponent defines god as.

If it's the case that they define god as a natural, non-universe creating, god, like if they claim that the sun is god, well, there's plenty to indicate that god.

Put a definition for god to save yourself from someone like me who would distort this debate to win it.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Bolas 8 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: This very hard to allocate points evenly between each side. Each is almost tied exactly. Both have well constructed arguments. Both used good conduct. S&G is even on both sides of the debate. I will offer one point to each side, in the S&G category and Conduct category. I would like each side to know that you are both tied on everything, but I would still like to give at least one point to each side.
Vote Placed by JOHNCENA1738 8 months 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Bound_up did not really defend his point. All he did was ask questions about con's arguments. This is why you should not have let someone else post their def. on "G-d". Therefore I had to give points to con, even though he did not have the correct mindset for this kind of debate.