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

Resolved: God Exists.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+12
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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,152 times Debate No: 70394
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (104)
Votes (4)




I would thank for Mister_Man for accepting this debate ahead of time and wish my opponent good luck.

This is my first debate over God existing.

1st Round is acceptance and definitions
2nd Round is contentions only, no rebuttles.
3rd Round is Rebuttles.
4th round is rebuttles and conclusions.
No profanities
Wikipeadia is not an acceptable Source
Burden of Proof shall be shared.
No Semantics

God- the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions (

Exists- to have actual being : to be real (


Thanks a lot for the invitation, Lannan. I've seen you around the site a lot and I'm glad to be able to have a debate with you. I love discussing religion and the existence of God and the origins of the universe and stuff along those lines, so this should be fun!

However if you keep saying "rebuttle" instead of "rebuttal," all I'll think about is what "buttle" sounds like.

Anyway, I'm excited for this and I'm looking forward to a great debate, I would love to be able to have my views changed regarding the existence of God.

Good luck and thanks again!
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting this debate as this is my first ever God exists debate so I do hope I do things as expected. I will bring up a few theories as to why God Exists.
Contention 1: Ontological Argument.
Dating as far back as the Saint Anslem, as this argument has been honnored by philosphers on every side of the spectrum. I shall be definding the version of this argument that was made popular by Alvin Plantinga. His model uses the S5 model and thus is immune to the popular arguments against that philospher Kant has made and hence making Kant's argument void. I shall also argue another point made famous by William CriagThe Argument is bellow.
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. [1]
Here we can see that we can already see that on face value that it is possible that God exists. Due to this small plausability we can see that at any slight chance proves that there is a God in some reality and hence this reality. In order for Con to disprove God he must show that it is impossible in every possible circumstance. Now as we look at the premise 1 and 2 we can see that God can exist which leads me into my S5 argument.
S5: If possibly necessarily P, then necessarily P [2]
We can see with this applied to the above portion of premise 1 we can see that God can exist simply with their being a possibility and the only way to negate it would be to show that there is no possible way that God can exist in any given circumstance. When we follow this string of beliefs we can see that since God can exist in other worlds he can exist in reality and thus actually exists.
Contention 2: Kalam Cosmological Argument
The Kalam Cosmological Argument (which I'll start refurring to as the KCA in order to save space) was created by William Lane Craig and is a simple theory that I have bellow.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. [3]
The first premise is true by the very laws a physics as it is a law of Conservation of Mass as it shows that Matter cannot be neither created nor destroyed. Meaning that the Universe cannot have been spontanously created as Big Bang opponent Flyod has stated. We can also see that things are not spontanous here. Like why doesn't the Earth suddenly expload? This is because the very laws of Physics binds and restrics nothingness so we can see that for one to question the first premise would be to question regualrity.
Now let us move on to the second premise here which is backed both by scientce and philosophy. Craig agrues using the Brode-Gruth-Velikum Theory that through the use of Red shift which shows that the universe is exspanding we can actually see that the universe, even if it is part of some multi-verse, still had to be created. [3] The philosophical side of this argument is that though many argue that the universe may be infinate the thing is that it is highly unlikely for things to exsist in an infinate chain and are thus had to have a starting finite point somwhere.
Now at this point you're probably asking yourself, okay Lannan that shows that the universe began at a point, but what does this have to do with God? This is that there is nothing known prior to the creation of the universe meaning that it since there is no determining factors to what happened before we must assume that it's personal and uncaused. This can be see by one asking how can a timeless rift be given such a temperory effect of the begining of time? One has to be extremely powerful in order to create the universe if not omnipotent. Thus for this reason God Exists.
Contention 3: Thomisitc TA
Here we can observe Saint Thomas Aquinas's theory on teleologic which is the ultamate causes of objects or actions in relation to their ends. This is from the 5th of Thomas Aquinas's theories explaining the existance of God. His theory is bellow.
1. If teleology exists, then an ordering intellect exists.
2. Teleology exists.
3. Therefore, an ordering intellect exists.
Here for the first part we may see that teleos exists on the basis that there must be intentionality and this exists in the mind. Hence one can see that if teleology truely exists then there must be intellect for it to be grounded to in the end. For this I site Edward Feser who states, "Where goal-directness is associated with consciousness, as it is in us, there is no mystery. A builder builds a house, and he is able to do so because the form of the house exists in his intellect because it is instantiated in a concrete particular object. And of course, the materials that will take on that form also exist already, waiting to take it on." [4]
So ask yourself, does teleology exist? Obvious, does the heart beat and pump blood because it just happens? No, it has a valid purpose of pumping blood to keep you alive. Without teleology there would be no purpose. We can see that from everyday occurance by using this. I mean how else are we to say that a carborator needs replaced if it does not have a purpose? When we observe other things that are inorganic like the Nitrogen and Water Cycle we can see that they too have purpose and are thus teleological by nature. [5]
We can see that since all teleology has to be grounded to a singel being in the universe. It is obvious that this high being has nothing else higher than it and is thus the greatest being in the universe which it would make sense to call this said being God.
1. Oppy, Graham (8 February 1996; substantive revision 15 July 2011). "Ontological Arguments". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
2. Marenbon, M., Medieval Philosophy: An Historical and Philosophical Introduction, Routledge, 2006, p. 128.
3. Craig, William Lane; Moreland, J. P. (2009). The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Oxford: John Wiley and Sons.
4. Edward Feser, "Teleology: A Shopper's Guide," Philosophia Christi 12 (2010): 157
5. David S. Oderberg, "Teleology: Inorganic and Organic," in A.M. González (ed.), Contemporary Perspectives on Natural Law (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008): 259-79


Thanks again for challenging me, this is technically my fourth religion debate but second "God vs. no God" debate, so let's see how this one goes.

I wish I could address your arguments now, so many thoughts going through my head, but I guess I'll just leave it and let my brain cry because it can't be used yet :'(

As most people on this site know, I'm an Atheist (hide the children!), but I am open to the possibility of a God(s) existing. I tend to go with what I see as fact, or what has the most evidence to support it, which in my eyes would be evolution, and several different theories pertaining to the origins of the universe, however the Big Bang is my go-to theory.

I would also like to say that it is hard (don't necessarily want to say impossible) to disprove the existence of something. If you replace the word "God" with literally anything, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for example, it'll be just as difficult to disprove the existence of it. Same goes for Allah, Brahman, Muhammad and more Gods of other religions, and considering the Christian God claims to be the only God...

"You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You" - 2 Samuel 7:22
"Yahweh is God; there is no one else." - 1 Kings 8:60
"I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me." - Isaiah 44:6

...And the Bible is the word of God [1], disproving other Gods from other religions would be almost a necessity for you to validate the credibility of God's word (after proving he exists). God, being a divine creator, if proved real, would go completely against his word (and he does not lie) considering a divine creator is the God in other religions, which, if the Christian God were proved to exist, would be quite easy to prove existed considering "God" is the same being, and the thing that makes the Gods different between the religions is basically the Holy Book associated with that religion and the God's name. For God to be proved real, the "miracles" in each Holy Book would "validate" the authenticity of that God existing, which is impossible, considering the Christian God is apparently the only God that exists.

I can see that I got kind of carried away there, mostly because it's actually my first time thinking up this argument, but my main point is that it would be impossible for the Christian God (or any God associated with a specific religion) to exist, considering he cannot lie, he says he is the only God, and if proved real, other Gods would easily be proved real as well. Therefore, a God pertaining to a specific religion is not possible.

But unfortunately for me, I can kind of see you're just referring to God as a divine creator, and not pertaining to one specific religion.

So let's get down to business.

When somebody asserts that something else exists, I'd say the burden of proof is on them. Considering the burden of proof is shared in this scenario, I'm going to explain how God most likely does not exist. And keep in mind, not having an answer to a question, such as something common like "how was the universe created," does not mean it was God. What gives us morals? I can't pinpoint the exact thing which makes us feel good or bad, other than our serotonin or dopamine levels rising and lowering, increased brain activity in certain areas, but because I can't exactly say why our brain activates in certain ways unfortunately does not prove God exists. Unknown answers does not prove the existence of God.

Let's start with a couple theories with a reasonable amount of evidence to back 'em up with. I'll jump into one possibility regarding the "cause" of the Big Bang - quantum fluctuations. These are temporary changes in the amount of energy in a point in space [2].
I had a picture here, but doesn't want me to post informative imagry.
This sort of sums it up. So we are now aware that energy is capable of creating matter. The Uncertainty Principle comes into affect [3], which, in a nutshell, states that the more precisely the position of a particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known. It's basically the fact that wave properties (yes, at the quantum level) cannot be perfectly examined.
The development of structure from the first quantum fluctuations during the first tiny fraction of a second, to the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background at 380,000 years, and finally to the first large galaxies at about one billion years after Big Bang and to the present. (Image credit: Typoform after NASA/WMAP Science Team).
Now let me remind you that "nothing" doesn't exist. So the idea that "the universe came from nothing" is... well, wrong. The universe (as far as I can see, and what the evidence points to) came from energy. When the only existing, well, anything, in the universe is pure energy, these fluctuations can cause explosions, on a pretty big scale, which can lead to what happened in the early years of our universe - inflation. From this (over billions of years) galaxies formed, stars exploded, planets formed, moons jumped into our orbits, and life began (on Earth and possibly elsewhere).
I've been seeing creationists kind of siding with the Big Bang in the sense that God caused the Big Bang to happen. Well, now that we've discovered quantum fluctuations and the possibility of them existing in a grand level, there's going to need to be a lot more evidence backing up the idea that God created the Big Bang.
Animalia life forms have been shown to evolve from plantae life forms near hydrothermal vents at the bottom of the oceans [4]. God did not create life.
Okay I'm really drawing a blank as to what to bring up now, I'm more interested in refuting your arguments, as I feel it's more important for you to prove the existence of the deity you're asserting exists, and for me to dispute each of your claims.
Basically what we've got so far is that quantum fluctuations could have very well been what caused the Universe to come into being, and life can form without divine intervention - the two main concepts creationists believe God intervened with.
So off to you, Lannan. I'm looking forward to the rest of this.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent spends the first half of his last round debating himself which I'll give him props to, but I'm not refuring to a certain religion that has a god, but simply as a higher being and Creator which is stated in the defnition that I have provided in my first round. So without further ado let us get to the debate.

Contention 1: Big Bang.

Last year scientists have actually found ripples in time and space continum. Now I know what my opponent had brought up and I agree with a lot of it, however, I believe that it actually helps prove the existance of God than disproves it. We can see after the Big Bang there was gravitational strips in the universe that ripped it appart in seconds. [1] We can actually see that a very very simplified version of this is in the Bible.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."- Genesis 1:1

You see, back then they didn't have a large understanding on the universe and how things worked so we can definately see books like the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran to probably not be science text books. If God had shown humans this we can see that they would probably be like Nastrodamus's description of the German Blitzkreig by calling the NAZI panzers Metal beasts or how he wasn't able to describe skyscrapers and such, but you get my point. People didn't have the best information and how things are now and it wasn't until just a couple hundred years ago before we began to make improvements in Space and Science.

Fred Hoyle, the man who coined the term the "Big Bang," has stated, "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics." [2]

Next, we can see that the Big Bang here also highly applies to my 3rd Contention from my last round of Thomistic TA. The next 5 points are add on by Hugh Ross to the original 5 points and this helps show that the Big Bang proves the existance of God.

6. Everything that had a beginning in time has a cause.
7. The universe had a beginning in time.
8. Therefore the universe had a cause.
9. The only thing that could have caused the universe is god.
10. Therefore, god exists. [3]

For the 6th premise we have already found that is true, so let's move on to the next premise.

Now for the 7th premise Ross writes this in support.

"By definition, time is that dimension in which cause-and-effect phenomena take place. No time, no cause and effect. If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and preexistent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who god is and who or what god isn't. It tells us that the Creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe." [4]

Here we can see that there has to be an entity controlling time and something had to come before time. That the entirety of everything had another dimension and this God was in another dimension and created the universe and all the laws of physics that we are still yet to even begin to comprehend. He later to go on to further back this up by providing Biblical verses and stating that it has to be that God has another time dimension and this is one of the reasons that we do not have concrete proof of him yet as we have yet to be able to travel in other dimensions. [4]

1. (
2. (
3. (Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos (Colorado Springs: Navpress, 1995), p. 14.)
4. ( Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, p. 76.)


Ah, the dreaded third round. I'll now attempt to dispute everything you've brought up from your second and third round arguments. But before I do that, I'd like everyone (including you, Lannan) to keep in mind that not having a definitive answer to a question does not mean we can just assert that God made it or caused it to happen.

So let's get to it!

Ontological Argument

That's a great idea and all, and I can see the type of logic to support it, however that is not evidence or proof of a maximally great being's existence. Right off the bat, you assert that "it is possible that a maximally great being exists," yet you fail to realize that a possibility doesn't mean certainty. If everything you're saying was in fact true, we would have in fact discovered this maximally great being, considering it is maximally great. However we have not, and what you currently have is a theory. "It is possible" does not mean "it is absolute."

I understand to 100% completely disprove the existence of God, I would basically need to show evidence of myself being in every possible place in space and time at once. However, you are asserting that something exists, and I am disagreeing. Your lack of evidence supporting the existence of God is in a sense my evidence to disprove the existence of God. I can easily make up anything (The Flying Spaghetti Monster, for example) and say "because you can't disprove it, it exists." However that isn't how our society and laws of logic and reality work.

I say there is no possible way God can exist in any given circumstance, considering a maximally great being is impossible to exist, as if it does exist, we would have come in contact with it, as it is maximally great. The Ontological argument is somewhat hard to argue against, because there's no evidence to support your theory to begin with, so I can't argue against your evidence, and all I can really do is use your lack of evidence to support the non-existence of a maximally great being. You saying "it's possible" does not actually make it absolute. Plus, that's a lot of "ifs" before your assertions. Not only is it not possible, but even if it were possible wouldn't make it an absolute.

Kalam Cosmological Argument

1. Correct
2. Possibly correct*
3. Possibly correct

*There's a very good chance that the Universe is infinite, ie. it always existed [1]. This does not completely rule out the Big Bang Theory, but what it does do is provide a reasonable explanation backing up the idea that the Universe has always existed. So if there's even a possibility (supported with some evidence) that the Universe has always existed, this means God did not create it, as matter can not be created nor destroyed. However, according to Stephen Hawkins' 'no boundary proposal', "As it expanded, it would have borrowed energy from the gravitational field, to create matter" [2]. So, "nothing" doesn't exist. In it's place, before the Big Bang (if the Big Bang is what caused the universe to form), was pure energy, which was transformed into matter. Scientists are also in the process of being able to turn pure light into matter [3]. So we're one step away from being able to prove that something can come from what you consider "nothing."

So let's see,
1. The Universe may or may not have began to exist, and could very well be infinite.
2. If the Universe did have a beginning, it can be explained by turning energy into matter, something not needing God's intervention.
3. The Universe (if it had a beginning) has a cause, which can be explained by quantum fluctuations, which I explained in my previous round, and once again, not needing God to intervene.

You not having a definitive answer does not mean it was God.

Thomistic TA

Something serving a purpose does not lead to God. Humans have goals. Random events happening are not happening to achieve their goals. Stars exploding, planets forming, and life starting is not based around a goal, it's just a random event. A house being built is a lot different than a solar system or even universe being formed. A person consciously building a house in order to sustain life by providing it with shelter is not the same as a random fluctuation in space, causing a cosmic explosion to create matter and all that. Because humans, with a conscious, can see how our planets orbit our sun, does not mean the solar systems were designed by a conscious being, or formed in order to achieve a set goal.

All teleology does not need to be grounded to a single being. Random events happen, some are detrimental, and some are beneficial. Cherry picking the beneficial ones to support the theory of God does not support anything.

Big Bang

I can see what you're trying to say, but unfortunately it doesn't really flow that well. God creating "the heavens and the Earth" has little to nothing to do with space and our solar system and the rest of the universe. That saying implies there was a beginning - a question lots of philosophers had, and that provided a temporary "answer." It also showed what created everything, another question many philosophers had, so there's another question "answered." And finally, it answered the question of "what is beyond the Earth," by saying the Heavens. So The first line in the Bible answers three questions that ancient philosophers had, something very important to society, as we, as the human race, are always looking for answers. At the time, it's what was needed, but over the thousands of years, we've disproved (to an extent) that God created everything, and that beyond our Earth is just Heaven - which is why so many people used to think they saw "fallen angels," as what we now know to be "space" was thought to be "Heaven." So "The Heavens and the Earth" can nowadays be interpreted to mean the universe, but at the time, that's not what it meant.

6. Correct.
7. As I stated earlier, the Universe could be infinite.
8. Possibly infinite.
9. No, as I stated by my quantum fluctuations. God is not the only thing that could have caused the universe to come into existence, if the universe did have a beginning.
10. No.

This is an interesting statement, however it doesn't necessarily get us anywhere. Time is relative to the "beginning" of the universe, but more importantly the rate at which we are "moving forward." Time is not controlled by anything, and it can be argued that time is simply a unit of measurement for events happening throughout the Universe. One hour from now, I won't have any time to submit my argument. It's the rate at which things continue to happen, and we've measured it in seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, and so on are simply human measurements of and representations of a period of things happening.

This does not prove God. This means we don't have a 100% understanding on what "created" time, but I'd say it's safe to assume nothing created it, and it's simply the rate at which things in general move forward and change naturally.


Your ontological argument is basically saying "if God exists as a maximally great being, he exists for sure," does not prove anything other than you have a theory. The Kalam argument doesn't hold much merit, as it's been hypothesized that there is at least one way the Universe could have come into existence without the help of God - through quantum fluctuations. The Thomistic argument cherry picks the beneficial random events from history and asserts that it was God's plan - once again nothing more than a theory. A lack of understanding the rate of time is not evidence of God.
Debate Round No. 3


I thank my opponent for this debate, but now it's time for it to come to a close. Remember that due to no one having seeing God we have to use theory, which is the basis of my argument, to either prove or disprove God.

Contention 1: Ontological Argument (OA)

My opponent begins to go on stating that we have no proof and that probability does not mean that there is a proof, but my opponent also dropped my S5 argument which I'll repost here for you.

S5: If possibly necessarily P, then necessarily P

This is important as when it's applied to the chain of events we can see that the probability is indeed a fact due to it's necessarilally. Remind you that this was a dropped argument on this as it help aids Premise 1 where my opponenet did most of his attacks on. This is huge, because we can see that the fact is that it changes from God probably existing to God exists necessarially. When we define Necessarially we can see that it means inevitable, so you can see that it is true that God exists already and this is from a dropped argument that my opponent failed to refute and that it should win me the debate alone. I also does not matter if this god is the FSM or the God of Christianity as all I have to do is prove through theory that God exists then we can see that it exists.

We did encounter God, but that really only depends on what religion you are in. As for other things in reguards to finding God. We still cannot see the entire universe as we have the observable universe that Light has only had the time to travel a certain length and this length is not that far. God could simply be away from the reaches of the Kelper and the Hubble Telescopes and the CHilean telescope. Or God could exist in another dimension as I brought up last round and we have just haven't yet the time to be able to travel to other dimensions. Once again the If part is confirmed in my S5 argument and there is no other way to concider this argument by won by Pro.

Contention 2: Kalam Cosmological Arugment.

Last round my opponent makes a huge turn around as he goes from stating that the universe had a beginning to be an infinite. We must realize that even if it was the Big Bang and that these waves caused matter. We can see that something had to start the Big Bang as I brought up in my 2nd Round and was also left unrefuted by Con. William Lane Craig has sited the evidence of Blue-Red shifts as the Univserve exspanding that it is hardcore evidence of the universe having a beginning. Also in my 3rd round I furthered this point and will increase my points on it later.

Contention 3: Thomisitic TA

Humans are indeed selfish as everything they do is to please them, but their morals and in order to please them would have an increase of their happiness and thus please God by showing that his creation did indeed to good. Sigmund Freud has stated that humans are selfishly aggressive. Let me give you an example. Say you're walking down the street and you see a homeless man begging for change. You give the man change. You feel good knowing that now he has money to get some food into his stomach, but Freud has agrued that this was only done, because you want to save the genes of the human race and you want it to continue. Also that you now get a feel good feeling and if you didn't you would feel guilty and ashamed. You could have easily done it just so you can feel good about yourself. Here he is quoted.

"I have found little that is 'good' about human beings on the whole. In my experience most of them are trash, no matter whether they publicly subscribe to this or that ethical doctrine or to none at all. That is something that you cannot say aloud, or perhaps even think."

Random events cannot just "happen" as all have equal cause and effect which was another point that was dropped by my opponnent in C2 last round. God has created the heavens which many people had also called space.

I do appologize as I have ran out of time.


And thank you, Lannan, for a great debate as well. One of the better religion ones I've been a part of. Considering it's impossible to prove a theory (as it would become a fact), I would like to say that the resolution should be "what is the most reasonable theory," as we can't really prove or disprove anything with only theories. Especially God, since you could literally replace God with anything, and "theoretically" it could be true, however "theoretically true" is neither fact nor truly true.


Maybe I'm off today, but I'm still failing to see how possibility = certainty. You assert that God exists, and you say he exists because he possibly can exist. Your 2nd point, however, doesn't work with our laws of logic - "If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world." This right away does not make sense, as you're saying "if it is possible, then it is possible." This is a theory, backed up with another theory, and you still have to provide evidence to support it. Theoretically God exists, you're right, as a theory is an idea. But we aren't talking about an idea, we're talking about a maximally great being, as you stated before.

And I don't feel your theory is enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a maximally great being exists.

Your next paragraph can be summed up by saying "because you haven't examined every single particle in the universe and multiverse, you haven't disproved God." Well, unfortunately we're talking about proving beyond a reasonable doubt, and not only did you admit to not having evidence for God (God could simply be away from the reaches of the Kelper and the Hubble Telescopes), but you fell back on the "well, you can't prove he doesn't exist" argument - which unfortunately for you, can be "disproved" - to an extent - by simply bringing up other theories as to how the universe came to be, how life started, and other feats apparently only God could accomplish - that you cannot disprove.

So, you cannot prove God's existence, and I cannot disprove his existence, but I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is not the only possibility for creation of life, the universe, time, etc. - and until you can disprove those theories, it's reasonable to believe God most likely does not exist.


I "made a huge turnaround" because I'm showing there are multiple theories for the existence of the Universe, or the creation of the Universe. And until these theories can be disproved, it's reasonable to believe that the Universe was created naturally instead of supernaturally. What William has provided is evidence to support a theory. If he provided enough evidence to prove this theory to be a fact, that the universe did have a beginning, then I'm sure there wouldn't even be an argument against the Big Bang, or an expanding universe. But there still is, there still are many theories as to how the universe came into existence, or is currently existing or whatever along those lines. Even if I say "alright, you're right, the universe is expanding outward," (which I do believe, but remember I'm not the one proving the Big Bang Theory or the idea that the universe is infinitely expanding and contracting, I'm just denying the existence of God by providing other reasons or events that have done what you and others claim can only have been created by God), this doesn't prove that the Universe started from a singularity, nor that it was caused to come into affect by God. The universe could very well be expanding faster than it was previously [1], hinting at the idea (theory) that the Universe didn't start from a singularity, but the galaxies were all just closer together. Right or wrong, this is still a theory (one of dozens) that would need to be disproved to show that the only possibility for the "beginning" of the Universe was God.

And unfortunately, I don't see any reason to throw in the cards and accept that the only possible way the Universe came into existence was God, especially when we have all these theories, and new ones, backed with plenty of evidence to support them. Not having the answer does not prove the existence of God. And having multiple possibilities backed with evidence is leaning toward the idea of God being just that - an idea, and nothing more.


Unfortunately I'm failing to see how this is evidence for the existence of God. If anything, showing that we all have different moral values is evidence against God, as that implies morals are subjective instead of objective.

By "random" I'm referring to something that does not have a conscious force that caused it to happen. The Sun exploding would be "random," if caused by too much helium build up or whatever, but it's "random" in the sense that a conscious being did not cause it to happen. "Space" refers to "nothing" as well, but people referring to darkness as "space" does not prove the existence of God.

I accept your apology, kind sir.


I still have not seen any reasonable evidence that supports the idea of God. I have provided plenty of explanations as to how events - that apparently were caused by God - can naturally occur. And until those can all be dismissed as incorrect, the idea of God will remain an idea until solid, hard evidence can be produced. Theories will be theories, but theories with evidence will be more reasonable to follow.

Thanks a lot for the debate, Lannan!
Debate Round No. 4
104 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
RFD Voting:

Ontological Argument: Pro's presentation was strong, but it was primarily based on unjustified logical possibility. Pro merely stated that "a maximally great being's existence is possible", without fulfilling his BoP in *proving* how a maximally great being's existence is possible. Nevertheless, Con failed to rebut based on the argument of possibility.

KCA: Con's primary contention for Pro's strong presentation of the KCA was the Big Bang theory, supported by evidence for unspecified quantum fluctuations from the Big Bang. Pro failed to contend this, merely citing rationales from literature without contending scientifically.

TTA: Con did not contend this at all, merely using his previous arguments to strengthen his rebuttals. Pro's argument was far stronger here.

OVERALL, arguments are a tie.

Sources: Pro used far more reliable sources against Con's sources of opinion blogs.

Spelling & Grammar: Pro had poor spelling, spelling rebuttal as "rebuttle" and so on, while Con's grammar was impeccable.
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
RFD Voting:

Ontological Argument: Pro's presentation was strong, but it was primarily based on unjustified logical possibility. Pro merely stated that "a maximally great being's existence is possible", without fulfilling his BoP in *proving* how a maximally great being's existence is possible. Nevertheless, Con failed to rebut based on the argument of possibility.

KCA: Con's primary contention for Pro's strong presentation of the KCA was the Big Bang theory, supported by evidence for unspecified quantum fluctuations from the Big Bang. Pro failed to contend this, merely citing rationales from literature without contending scientifically.

TTA: Con did not contend this at all, merely using his previous arguments to strengthen his rebuttals. Pro's argument was far stronger here.

OVERALL, arguments are a tie.

Sources: Pro used far more reliable sources against Con's sources of opinion blogs.

Spelling & Grammar: Pro had poor spelling, spelling rebuttal as "rebuttle" and so on, while Con's grammar was impeccable.
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
>Reported vote: tejretics // REMOVED<

3 points to Pro (arguments) // 1 point to Con (S&G). {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and grammar: Pro constantly kept saying "Rebuttle", and Con's grammar and spelling were impeccable. More convincing arguments: Very, very close; but while Con's opposition arguments were strong, their rebuttals were weaker than Pro. Everything else tied. Slight edge to Pro.}

[*Reason for removal*] This RFD isn't specific enough in explaining why it voted on arguments. "Arguments were strong; rebuttals were weak" -- these words could be said about *any* debate. They do nothing more than repeat the point category, and restate *that* Pro had better arguments, without explaining *why.* Because it offers no meaningful feedback on arguments, this RFD must be removed.
Posted by Lee001 3 years ago
I don't understand as to why Con's point's are exactly being taken away. Most of them are informative litigable reasoning for their vote.
Posted by Mister_Man 3 years ago
We should change the name of this debate to "let's see who can get the mods to delete more votes."
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
>Reported vote: MrJosh // Moderator action taken: removed<

6 points to Con (S&G, sources, arguments). {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: Conduct equal, no RFD required. S&G to CON because of numerous errors by PRO. Sources to CON beacause all of his sources were accessible to me, while many of PRO's sources were texts I could not reference. Arguments to CON because he not only refuted all of PRO's arguments (leaving us in the null position, which, as CON pointed out, means PRO has failed his BoP), but he also made an argument of his own, which was really just icing.}

[*Reason for removal*] The argument explanation is not specific enough. It could be copy-pasted into any debate. Saying Con refuted Pro's points and offered an argument of his own does not give any meaningful feedback to the debaters about what they did right or wrong.
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
>Reported vote: Splenic_Warrior // Moderator action taken: removed<

7 points to Con. {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: The only real question here is based on the burden of proof. Pro had it, so all Con had to do was refute Pro's claims, and he wins. Con did refute (and handily so) Pro's arguments, so he wins, hands down. }

[*Reason for removal*] (1) This RFD makes no effort to explain its conduct, sources, and S&G points. (2) The RFD for arguments is not specific enough. It could be copy-pasted into any debate.
Posted by Berend 3 years ago
Who said anything about a PM? Not that it matters I will just redo it as it's that simple. However I think part of my post was addressing his source, I spoke of his use on apologist that was used which holds no real credibility other than a rehashed argument.
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
>Gave my vote, if a mod needs elaboration, please just ask me.

This is not how it works. You have an obligation to offer valuable and specific feedback in your RFD to the debaters. Your ability to explain your reasoning to me in a PM doesn't affect whether your RFD is sufficient. Feel free to re-vote while offering more specific reasoning.
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
>Reported vote: Berend // Moderator action taken: removed<

5 points to Con (sources, arguments). {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: From my view, con had better convincing argument. I can't prove that since no one knows what rhetoric works in my head vs theirs, but both did very well. One issue that brings Pro down is the use of overly used and already defeated arguments. Such things like the ontological argument are flawed and do not work in their favor as they can logically be used with anything, anyone and any and all gods. MY only advice is to research the details yourself and make your own rhetoric that hasn't been over used. I am always disappointed to find arguments over used and things like the ontological are and always have been horrible arguments. If a mod requires elaboration in this detail, simply ask and I can give more, but I wish to keep my word count down, good job to both, interesting debate. I just get tired of hearing Christian apologist arguments used a lot to the point they are the only ones used, it's not very creative, but nonetheless Pro showed admiration in a way I respect.}

[*Reason for removal.* Failure to explain sources vote.]
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Dookieman 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Lee001 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: In the second round, I felt that pro was basing his arguments more on beliefs and arguments of other people such as philosophers, these are just beliefs and opinions. Point goes to con. He did a good job on proving that "there should be no other god" according to scriptures but yet there are. Both sides rebutted well. I just found con's arguments more convincing and believable.
Vote Placed by Envisage 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: A bit over-casual for my liking. Con only makes one argument against Gods existance, and to be honest I find his logical progression extremely messy. Ultimately he argues there are other causes to the universe (quantum fluxuations) which I don't think Lannan addressed very well. Lannan goes for volume with 3 and a half arguments, the KCA was refuted by Con on grounds of that th e universes cause didn't need to be divine (QF), which also refutes Lannan's 'tagged on' argument (which is an argument in it's own right, instead of an extension of the TA). Lannan wins on the MOA and makes minor gains on the TA, Con didn't understand that this was a modal argument and thus modes of possibility are different to conventional ones.... Although Lannan didn't help by making it somewhat ambiguous (deliberately so?). TA met decent opposition. Thus, Lannan wins mostly on MOA grounds.