The Instigator
Pro (for)
2 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

The Abrahamic God almost certainly does not 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: 2/15/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,635 times Debate No: 21186
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)




This has been debated a lot, I know, but I've never seen it debated well from either side (or at least as well as I believe I can debate from the one side, or as well as my opponent from the other).

god (gd)
1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. [1]

ex�ist (g-zst)
intr.v. ex�ist�ed, ex�ist�ing, ex�ists
1. To have actual being; be real. [2]

Abrahamic God being, of course, the God spoken of in the Torah (Old Testament), the Gospel (New Testament), and the Qur'an (Koran(Only thing I could think of to parenthesize)).

First round for acceptance.
Second for opening arguments.
Third for first rebuttals.
Fourth for second rebuttals and closing statements.

I won't define any rules on etiquette because I'm sure the voters will be able to spot a dropped argument or uncited argument.

I say "almost certainly" because it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of anything. God's existence is what would be called non-falsifiable. I will allow that we both have the burden of proof because, well, I'm a nice guy. Humble, too!



I accept.

Since this debate focuses on the Abrahamic God, I think it's prudent to describe him more accurately than FreeDictionary. The Westminster Confession of Faith [1] does a great job of consolidating the multitudinous descriptions found in scripture:

There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.

God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.

In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

I will be specifically arguing that the Abrahamic God as described in Christian theology exists. So I will not be appealing to nor defending Jewish or Muslim doctrine. I hope I can provide the rigorous discussion Pro is hoping for.


Debate Round No. 1


THAT'S a consolidation? My goodness, God must be pretty darn amazing.

I'm actually okay with you changing the debate resolution from the Abrahamic God in general to the one specified in the New Testament; the God who Jesus is not only the embodiment of, but the son of as well, because I generalized to the Abrahamic God because I thought of it as a courtesy to my opponent. I feel almost guilty though, because the God Con just described with Westminster's 'consolidation' is even more difficult to believe in, for it is a far worse definition by those made by modern Christian apologists and hermeneuticists. However, that statement was one to be proven, not asserted, so here I go.

The Three Main Reasons the Abrahamic God Does Not Exist

1. Stupid Design

Now, not intending to pre-empt the arguments from my opponent, let me simply say that the teleological arguments, or arguments from design (if something, such as a watch or a human eye, LOOKS designed, it IS designed), often forget the abhorrent design flaws in humans, the Earth, and indeed, the whole galaxy in which we reside, the Milky Way. Oh, and the universe too. That's right. The universe.

Actually, let us begin with the universe, because I am nothing if not ambitious. First of all, there are two main theories of the universe after the Big Bang: It will return to its singularity and be destroyed, or it will continue expanding to the point where you won't be able to see other solar systems without a telescope. So God will either destroy the UNIVERSE, or make it so wide you will never be able to see it. [1] Moreover, excluding the Earth, and her sister Gliese 581c , there is nowhere in all of the known universe which would support human beings. Quite peculiar, considering He created the heavens and the Earth for us. Heat, cold, radiation, meteor collision, you name it. "But wait!", I hear you say, "that just proves God exists, since Earth is hospitable to life!". I'll get to Earth in a second.

Ahh, the Milky Way. What a wonderful place! It holds us, after all. Too bad it's going to be destroyed. [2]

The Earth. Beautiful. Magnificent. Home to, if I may be so bold to say it, the miracle of life. But alas! She is a cruel mistress. Earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis. Not to mention that approximately 99.9% of all life that has EVER existed in the lone known safe haven for life, is extinct. [3] Gone. Died out. Speaking of life, it only took 3.5 billion years for multicellur organisms to even appear. [4] THIS is the efficiency of an omnipotent being? And let's not forget that the Earth and all its flora and fauna were made for humans, and so how odd is it that two-thirds of it can't be lived on? And most of the third which remains is either too hot, or too cold, or too barren, or too dangerous? "Ahh!", you say, rudely interrupting once more, "that is why it is such a miracle that God made humans able to survive so well!". Did he really?

Humans. The smoking gun, if you will, of stupid design. We can't detect fatal things such as poisonous gas, magnetic fields, ionizing radiation, CO, CH4, CO2, ect. We can't fly. We can't breath in water. We can't do the many things that other species do, nor can we do many things better than other animals (hearing as well as dogs, for example).

I'll end this point with Christopher Hitchens' observation: "Humans have existed for about 100,000 years, at least. Prior to modern health and medicine, the average lifespan was 20-30 years. Most babies die during the first five years of life, either at birth or from diseases. Natural events like lightning storms, earthquakes, tsunamis, and other mysterious phenomena terrified these humans. You can imagine what it was like then, knowing nothing of how nature works."

"So this god just sat there in his heavenly throne with folded arms and watched everything happen for 98,000 years before finally deciding ‘Okay, it's time to intervene.' And the best way to do that is a human scapegoating sacrifice in primitive Palestine, where the news would take so long to spread, it still hasn't reached large parts of the world". [5]

Some design, huh? And some designer too. We must ask ourselves whether it a flawed God which created flawed humans, or flawed humans which created a flawed God?

2. Impossible by His Own Nature

Omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent, eh? Let us see...


Faith is seen in Christianity as one of the three major virtues. [6] Assuming faith is a 'belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence', [7] it is safe to say it is a sacrifice of critical thought. Now, is this a good thing? To demand of us a sacrifice of the one thing that we here at employ? I submit to you, it is not.

Nor is he good to punish all mankind for the sins of Adam and Eve [8].

And lest we forget the commandment which tells us not to covet our neighboor's goods. What happens if we break this commandment? Well, Con's definition tells us that He is 'terrible in His judgments', so I'll leave that up to your imagination, but think about that for a moment. Terrible punishments for what you THINK! Read 1984 and tell me that is not Thoughtcrime, and then tell me God isn't awful.

I could go on about all the evil that exists and how it contradicts God's very nature, but that's too easy, as well as too boring.


This is one is simple. If God knew everything, He wouldn't have had to test the fate of Abraham [9] or Job, [10] because he would have already known how faithful they were. I could expand, but thus above is the proof from the bible itself against omniscience from God.


This has been attacked in a million ways but I'll put it like this: If God is omnibenevolent and omniscient, then he cannot be omnipotent, because then he would not be excused from the contradictions pointed out above.

I'll close this point on the way Epicurus put it:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?" [11]

3. Epistemology and Science

Going past Berkeley and Descartes, and assuming we can know anything outside our consciousness, then we can know God does not exist. Why? Using the scientific method.

To put it simply, let us call God's existence a hypothesis. Now, a hypothesis is true when all the evidence points to it being true, and none of the evidence points to it being false. That the Earth revolves around the Sun is not a fact, it's a hypothesis, but all the evidence points to its truth, and no evidence negates it. (or, in another way: Hypothesis: This keyboard exists. All evidence supports this hypothesis. No evidence negates its, Ergo, it is true) The same thing can be said against the God hypothesis. NO evidence has ever supported its truth, and almost all the evidence regarding claims for existence in scripture has been negated. In this way, we can know God does not exist.

To summarize:
1. God is either terrible at design or very cruel to design everything as He has
2. He cannot exist as described by Con and Christian theology, because it is contradicted by both logic and empirical evidence
3. We can know God doesn't exist using the scientific method in the same way we can know anything



By way of disclaimer, I want to remind the readers that my opponent's Round 1 rules state that my Round 2 is to be used for opening arguments only. Thus, I will not be providing a rebuttal to his opening statements until Round 3.

Transcendental Argument for God's Existence (TAG)1

Imagine two scholars convening to debate the existence of air. Both sides offer profound arguments and challenging cross-examination over whether or not air is real. Such a debate would be embarrassing for the debater attempting to prove air doesn't exist since its existence is a necessary precondition for him to debate in the first place. He would be a living contradiction whose argument could only be possible if it were wrong. By showing up to the debate, he's already lost.

My opponent is like the man arguing against the existence of air. By asserting that God almost certainly doesn't exist, he has undermined his ability to rationalize his position. He has in principle already lost.

The proof of God's existence is that, without Him, you cannot prove anything.

The Presuppositional Conflict of Worldviews

TAG begins by recognizing that the existence of God is not proven in the same evidential way you might prove the existence of other things. All evidential approaches start from a position of neutrality and then "follow the evidence" to its proper conclusion. The problem is that there is no neutrality. Everyone is bias. We all have presuppositions about reality.

The proof of non-neutrality is born out of the problem of infinite regression2. To convince someone of a truth claim, we use other truth claims, which themselves have to be justified, and so on. As finite beings we cannot continue the regression forever and will ultimately stop at a presupposition. As a result, we all hold to a collection of beliefs we consider to be self-evident. This is called our worldview. This worldview becomes the basis by which we interpret the whole of reality.

And that's the problem. The existence or non-existence of God fundamentally shapes the whole of reality. As a result, all evidential approaches to proving or disproving God's existence end up begging the question. We examine the evidence for or against God in light of whether or not the existence of God is plausible in the first place. The existence or non-existence of God is a presupposition. This is why both sides can look at the same facts and consider it to be evidence to separate, incompatible premises.

So when it comes to proving the existence of God, we have to take a different approach. In this debate, we have two worldviews in conflict. TAG determines which worldview is the most rational by determining which one best accounts3 for the preconditions of human experience. The three main factors of human experience tested are the ones primarily employed in the pursuit of knowledge: logic, science, and morality.

y opponent has used all three of these things in this opening round. This shows a commitment on his part—and rightly so—that logic, science, and morality are useful in determining the factuality of things. Surely we take these things for granted in all our debates. But now my opponent can no longer take them for granted because I'm going to ask him to provide an account for logical laws, uniformity of nature, and moral duties from within the atheistic worldview.

If atheism cannot account for these things and Christian theism can, then atheism as a worldview ought to be rejected, which will—by implication—also require the rejection of its premise that God does not exist.

Laws of Logic

So what gives logic its law-like nature? First, a logical law does not need to be experienced in order to be true. That is, we don't have to test the laws of logic in every conceivable time and place in the universe in order to accept their veracity. Thus, the laws of logic are universal. Second, a logical law is an abstract entity, and as such are immaterial, not to be found as objects in nature. Third, a logical law isn't subject to change or revision else it wouldn't be a law. So, the laws of logic are also invariant.

The laws of logic are universal, invariant, and immaterial. Atheism cannot account for the necessary preconditions of these qualities. To say the laws of logic are conventional or sociological is to render them subject to change, and I might as well just revise those laws to suit my needs. To say the laws of logic are found in nature is to make them materialistic, and they lose their law-like character. So, atheists are caught within a philosophical bind. They want to use logic to cross examine theistic claims, yet they cannot account for its law-like nature.

The laws of logic make sense within the Christian worldview. The laws of logic reflect the thinking of God. God is immutable, immaterial, and universal, the very qualities necessary to make logic reliable in the pursuit of knowledge.

If God does not exist, then we cannot reason with logic.

Uniformity of Nature

If there is no uniformity in nature, science would be impossible. So, it must be asked whether or not the atheist can account for the uniformity of nature from within its worldview. On what basis does the atheist rationalize that the future will behave like the past? 18th century philosopher David Hume argued that using past probabilities to answer the question involves circular reasoning since it would involve using the principle of induction to prove the principle of induction4.

The Christian worldview on the other hand does account for the uniformity of nature. God created our universe and governs it. God has promised to uphold the universe, and since he is unchanging and true we can account for the universe behaving in the future as it has behaved in the past.

If God does not exist, then science is impossible.

Moral Absolutes

This is where we see most inconsistencies within the atheist worldview. The most common objections to Christianity involve an appeal to morality: the problem of evil and suffering, the problem of eternal punishment, the problem of unbelief, and so on. All of these arguments criticize Christianity on the basis that it is an immoral philosophy.

To utilize morality in a debate is to take for granted its objective nature. Once again, however, atheism cannot account for moral absolutes. Typically, they say it is a societal convention or a product of evolution, but either response is to render morality subjective, and subjective moral values can hardly constitute proof for an objective claim. To criticize God's behavior according to human preference is to say nothing more than, "God doesn't exist because I don't like Him."

In the Christian worldview, God is good and is the standard of goodness. Combined with His unchanging and immaterial nature, we have a rational account for the objective nature of morality. As a result, the only way to criticize Christianity as a moral system is to take for granted the very qualities of morality that only Christianity can provide.

If God does not exist, then there are no moral absolutes.


Atheism cannot rationally account for logical laws, scientific principles, and absolute morals—the very things my opponent needs to even participate in this debate. He will certainly use these things, but in so doing he abandons atheistic presuppositions. He will be like the man arguing against the existence of air all the while breathing it. He can argue for atheism (or against theism) only if Christianity is true. Therefore, the assertion that God almost certainly does not exist is negated.

I turn the floor back to my opponent


Debate Round No. 2


Note Before Actual Response*
Would you kindly tell me how to embolden text? It would be quite useful for organizational purposes.

*Actual Response*

Transcendental Argument for God's Existence

Before the actual rebuttal, I have one thing to say. "God of the Gaps" is a term used to describe an argument that states: "Because there is a gap in knowledge or understanding, God must be the answer." For example: I do not understand how humans appeared on this Earth. Ergo, God did it. I wish anyone who is reading this to reread Con's argument and decide whether a single one of his three points doesn't fall into this category. Having said that, let's get rolling.

Con openly admits to not examining the existence of God based on evidence, preferring instead to examine it from a worldview which presupposes God. He was right when he said an argument regarding the existence of God can wind up begging the question. It is quite clear that Con's one conclusion is based on three premises, all of which presuppose the conclusion to be true.

Laws of Logic

Speaking of logic and its fallacies, let us examine both. Logic can be valid, but not true. For example, if all humans are potatoes, and I am a human, am I a potato? Yes, because that is the conclusion based on the premises. However, it is not true, because I am not a potato. The premise that all humans are potatoes is false, and therefore, so is its conclusion.

Now, Con's logic is: If logic exists, and it can only exist because God exists, does God exist? I would concede that he would, were those premises true. However, he has not proven at all that the existence of concepts such as logic or math depend on the existence of any God.

I'd propose it's more likely the result of evolution: "If I don't run, I'll be eaten by this other animal; I don't want to be eaten by this other animal; I should run" is the product of evolution, not God. I'd say mine is a more likely conclusion.

Uniformity of Nature

I could say argument from ignorance and leave it at that. Fortunately, I can do what Con does not seem to be able to do: Account for the apparent uniformity of nature without invoking the will of a deity which breaks the laws of nature. I do this by simply invoking the scientific method once more:

1. Above the level of quantum theory, which is in its infancy, and therefore, its ignorance, all evidence supports the hypothesis of uniformity in nature
2. Again, without regard to the present uncertainty regarding quantum theory, there is no evidence that contradicts the hypothesis of uniformity in nature
3. Ergo, we conclude the hypothesis of uniformity in nature to be true

Now, as far as I can tell, I have accounted for the ability to presume uniformity in nature. However, in the case that Con demonstrates otherwise, I am still awaiting with baited breath anything more than a textbook logical fallacy.

Moral Absolutes

I'm quite surprised to see Con so readily affirming that moral absolutes exist. Whether they do or not has been a question to philosophers for thousands of years, so I humbly request to observe the proof available to him of its existence that has eluded the greatest minds humanity has ever known.

Now, I half expect Con to suggest that I was the one to assert it existed by criticising the actions of the Abrahamic God as immoral. Note that I did not say that sacrificing newborns to a deity was wrong then. I do, however, humbly appeal to the subjective morality of the voters, as to whether or not such a thing is wrong, at the very least, presently. But herein we have a contradiction. The moral standards set forth by the Abrahamic God assert themselves as perfect, eternal, and closed to debate or interpretation. From this, we have one of two conclusions: Either it is morally justified to sacrifice your newborn child when you believe a deity is requesting it from you, or God demanded an unjust act. I believe it is the latter.

So here we see how this one point fails in two ways:

1. It presupposes an objective morality, and therefore an objective adjudicator
2. It presupposes that the actions of the Abrahamic God (destroying cities, demanding human sacrifice, ect.) were, are, and will always be perfectly moral. This, I submit to you, would not be the case, were there actually a God to commit them.

I would like to submit to you an alternative to the adjudication of a supreme, divine dictator, to determine an action's morality. This is solidarity. Confucius created what we now call the Golden Rule, and he did it 500 years before Jesus of Nazareth was even born. It is commonly said as, "Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you". In this, we have the very foundation of the ethical teachings of nearly all major religions, including, of course, Christianity. It encompasses all actions undertaken except of those by sadomasochists. It is also a necessity of evolution: "I don't want to be eaten my a pack of wolves. I am less likely to be eaten by a pack of wolves if I am in a group of fellow humans. Humans won't want me in their group if I kill them or steal their food or do other things to undermine their ability to survive, so I won't do those things." I submit my scenario is more likely than a supernatural adjudicator who kills and tortures.

In summary:

"TAG determines which worldview is the most rational by determining which one best accounts for the preconditions of human experience" Con hasn't accounted for anything, but has rather said God did it and left it at that, and has done so for his three points of his one argument. What I have said to account for them, is:

Logic: It is more likely logic exists because of an evolutionary necessity than because a being which defies logic created it.

Natural Consistency:

Scientific evidence supports the validity of scientific evidence. And yes, I know how that sounds, but using science to explain science is more rational than using God to explain God.


Again, evolution explains concepts of morality, objective or otherwise. Moreso than a morally abhorrent supernatural adjudicator.


The resolution isn't that I need to support the stance of atheism any more than my opponent needs to justify the stance of a theist. I need to demonstrate that the Abrahamic God almost certainly does not exist, and my opponent must do the opposite. This debate is not about the uncertainty of atheistic views about certain concepts vs theistic views of those same concepts. It is that the Abrahamic God does exist vs that same God does not exist. For this reason, I believe I am not subjected to the argument from ignorance (if you can't explain it as otherwise, my explanation is correct) which my Con has declared will decide this debate. To quote Leplace, God is an unnecessary hypothesis. Everything works without Him.

"He can argue for atheism (or against theism) only if Christianity is true." Why must Jesus of Nazareth be the son of God for me to use logic? Why must I believe a dead man came back to life after 3 days to hold a moral opinion? Why must I believe Jesus casted devils into 2,000 pigs and sent them to drown to employ science?

Con still has all his work cut out for him. Assuming that everything he has said in Round 2 is true (which is, Q.E.D., a very generous assumption), he would not have made a case for anything but a deistic God. One that created the universe and its laws, and then walked away from it. Not one thing he has said supports the hypothesis that this god of his is a 'personal' god. One that answers prayers. One that judges our dreams as we sleep. One that punishes or rewards us for all eternity after we die. There is not one single thing Con has said thus far that supports the existence of a theistic God, let alone an Abrahamic God, let alone a Christian God.


Con hasn't made one point for the existence of an Abrahamic God, let alone a single argument that is more likely true than not.


Per the rules of the debate, I will now offer rebuttals to my opponent's opening statements and defend my arguments as well.


Stupid Design

Pro is trying to convince us that the universe is so stupidly designed that it is more rational to believe it was not designed at all. What makes the universe's eventual death a bad design in some objective way? Perhaps God doesn't need a universe that lasts forever. In fact, Christian theology is perfectly okay with a dying universe because God has foretold a New Earth. "Stupid design" is Pro's arbitrary opinion, and cannot be considered evidence for the objective truth claim that God almost certainly doesn't exit.

The same rebuttal applies to his comments on the earth and humans. In fact, this entire line of argumentation absurd:

  1. If God exists, his designs of the universe, the earth, and humans would meet with our approval.
  2. I (and others) disapprove of the designs of the universe, the earth, and humans.
  3. Therefore, God does not exist.

There is nothing objective about Pro's tacit approval that makes one iota of difference with regards to the existence of God.

Impossible by His Own Nature


Pro criticizes Christian theology for citing faith as a major virtue. He says faith equals the sacrifice of critical thought. Faith is, in his estimation, the absence of reason. However, as I showed in my opening statements, my opponent has faith also. He also has presuppositions about reality. What does he have faith in? Reason. He condemns Christianity for faith in lieu of reason when he in fact has faith in reason itself. This is called special pleading. Pro wants the readers to reject Christians for having faith but praise and condone his own faith in reason.

Pro says God is not good for punishing mankind for Adam and Eve's sin or for punishing us for "though crime." If God is objectively wrong, to what moral authority is Pro referring? Confucius? The voters? Neither of these are objective moral authorities. So yet again Pro is condemning God's actions according arbitrary moral rules. If we are going to permit moral subjectivity to win debates, perhaps I could just buy votes in my favor and claim victory.


Pro engages in a strawman fallacy when he asserts that God was testing Abraham or Job in order to find out how faithful they were, as though He didn't know. This is just poor exegesis at best and outright deception at worst. God clearly already knew Job was faithful1.


The problem of evil is not a logical problem. God can be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good and still allow evil to exist so long as he has a morally good reason for doing so. It does not matter how indignant Pro is about evil and suffering. If God has a good reason, then there is no logical contradiction with his all-goodness.

Epistemology and Science

Pro says God's existence is a hypothesis. This is utterly fallacious thinking. It assumes that all things are proven the same way, which is a self-refuting position. The statement "all things are hypotheses that are proven true when all the evidence pointing to them are true" cannot be proven using evidence pointing to it. The statement is abstract in nature. It cannot be hypothesized and tested. The statement can only be proven true if it is false.

My opponent has presuppositions about reality and so do I. Neither of us is capable of starting from a neutral position because of our presuppositions. God cannot be proven to exist in the atheist worldview because it's already presupposed that he can't. Nor can God be disproven in the Christian worldview because it's already presupposed that he exists. Thus, both sides (not just Christians) engage in circular reasoning when they attempt to treat the existence of God as a factual hypothesis. That's why we need a more philosophical approach to the question, which is where TAG comes in.

Defense of TAG

My opponent just doesn't understand TAG. It has gone so far over his head, I don't know how to correct his numerous errors without repeating my entire opening arguments. I'll do my best to touch on the most glaring issues and defer to the readers' comprehension of TAG for the remainder.

First, there is no "God of the Gaps" happening in this argument. I am using transcendental arguments to determine the necessary preconditions of logic, science, and morality. Transcendental arguments have the following form:

  1. P is a necessary precondition of Q
  2. Q is true
  3. Therefore, P is true

The necessary precondition to ensure the law-like nature of logic is that logical laws are universal, invariant, and immaterial. The necessary precondition of science is the uniformity of nature. The necessary precondition of moral absolutes is the same as those of logical laws. They must be universal, invariant, and immaterial.

From there, we compare Christian presuppositions to atheist presuppositions to see which worldview accounts for logic, science, and morality.

To account for these things requires the worldview to satisfy all necessary preconditions mentioned above.

Laws of Logic

First of all, I never insisted that logic depends on God's existence. I did argue that only Christianity can account for the necessary preconditions that make logic reliable in gaining knowledge. Conversly, I asked Pro to show us how atheism can account for those necessary preconditions. While Pro did give us an anecdotal origin story of an early human using logic, it didn't account for anything. It's equivalent of asserting that we just started using logic. That is to say, Pro is begging the question being asked of him.

Uniformity of Nature

Pro's account of the uniformity of nature using induction. I expressly showed why that is circular reasoning in my opening argument. He says that all evidence supports the hypothesis of the uniformity of nature. However, the evidence he cites is scientific, which presupposes the uniformity of nature. He's using scientific evidence, which relies on the principle of induction, to inductively prove the uniformity of nature.

Furthermore, I never argued that the will of a deity was required for nature to be uniform. Rather, I argued that presupposing Christianity accounts for the uniformity of nature whereas presupposing atheism does not. There is a difference, and Pro's failure to understand this difference assures that he will not be able to rise to the occasion to refute TAG.

Moral Absolutes

Pro once again misunderstands my argument. I never claimed to do what centuries of philosophers could not. I never said "I know morality is objective." What I argued was that Pro and I both take objective morality for granted whenever we employ them in debate. Pro employed morality in his arguments as did I.

But if we are to use morality in our arguments, then our worldviews ought to account for it. Pro does not do this for us. He gives us Confucius' Golden Rule, but that doesn't account for objective morality. I asked Pro to show how there can be moral absolutes in an atheist universe, and he didn't give us anything.


My argument for the existence of God is that, without him, you cannot prove anything. Pro has yet to refute my assertions that atheism as a worldview cannot provide the necessary preconditions for logic, science, and morality. In fact, it appears that he doesn't fully understand the structure of TAG.

Pro's claim in this debate is the God almost certainly does not exist. He offered his opinions of the design of the universe, the earth, and humans. He engaged in special pleading regarding faith. He uses arbitrary moral standards to criticize God's actions. He provided strawman interpretations of Christian scripture. He even goes so far to arbitrarily insist that God must be proven in the same way we prove any hypothesis.

On balance, I think I have shown how my arguments and refutation outweigh Pro's.


Debate Round No. 3


Rebuilding My Arguments

Stupid Design

Con's rebuttal can be summarized thusly: We can't say the universe or anything else is poorly designed, because if He designed it so, it must be perfect for His plan.

I don't think it is too much to say that, objectively, a being which is not adept at surviving in its environment would not be well designed. Is it subjective to say that a hammer made of jell-o is poor at hammering in a nail? Of course not. Con would no doubt say that we can not say with as much certainty that the purpose of an organism is to survive, as the purpose of a hammer is to bang in a nail. It could indeed be apart of His divine wisdom to make us all certain to die of things which a better design would make non lethal. Except, in this, Con would be mistaken. Evolution has concluded that the sole purpose of an organisms' evolution is surviving. [1] That's the whole idea behind evolution. Mutation to attributes which are more advantageous. Advantageous to God's plan? No. Advantageous to surviving.

We know evolution is to survive. We know we evolved. We know our purpose is to survive. Had God designed us, we would not be so inept at surviving, because God is perfect, and so too would be his designs.

Impossible by His Own Nature

Con is trying to convince us that if logic and reason is just as hard to believe in as believing there is an invisible, all powerful, all knowing, all good being in a supernatural realm watching over us. To those who believe that both these things are equal in likelihood, I am not addressing you. If you don't use reason, I can't convince you with reason, and so I won't attempt to. I'm not equipped to argue outside of reason, so I'll leave that to Con.

Regarding Morality

Unlike what Con would have you believe, I do not appeal to a God when I condemn Him (note he has not defended the actions of Yahweh, only said morality exists, and therefore a (any) God), I appeal to my own sense of morality. I decide for myself what is right and wrong and search my own conscious for adjudication. Now, Con can say I'm wrong, but he can't prove it, because he can't consult a God to adjudicate. Under Con's assertion, a moral issue is impossible. There is never any gray area and never any room for debate. Every issue is black and white, and we can discern which is which by appealing to an adjudicator we can never communicate to. There very fact that we are disagreeing proves that assertion wrong, for he should be able to invoke God and prove otherwise.

Regarding Omniscience

Con knows full well how the Book of Job ended. For the uninitiated, God allowed Satan to torture Job and kill his family to try to get Job to lose faith, because God was sure he wouldn't. He ended up being wrong, because Job did forsake God, and then God appeared to him and used the same argument Con has regarding conflicts with God's nature and reality : I know more than you and am more powerful. You are nothing. You have no right to question me. I am God. You have no right to be upset about you being tortured and your family killed because I am God and I said it was okay. [2] So the question is, why would God make a mistake about Job's faith, if he knew he would lose faith, and why would God make a wager with Satan that he knew he would lose? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm not allowed to ask that question, and neither are you.

Regarding Omnipotence

Again, it's all part of God's plan, and you have no right to question it. To believe this is to wish to be a slave under the rule of a tyrant who is not open to democracy or appeal. The assumption that God has a reason to allow the unspeakable evils which exist is a generous one. Not only that, it presumes God's existence.

God Hypothesis

I admit, that when all the evidence in the known universe points to something being true, and no evidence in the known universe contradicts it, I am foolish and faithful and stupid enough to believe it is true. Guess we can't all be wise enough to believe something that no evidence in the known universe supports and all evidence in the known universe declares false to be true.

"God cannot be proven to exist in the atheist worldview because it's already presupposed that he can't."

It is not the atheistic worldview which I am employing. It is the scientific worldview. But I ask, why is it impossible to find scientific evidence of God's existence? Surely, everything should be evidence of His existence? There are many Christian and theistic scientists today, and many of the greatest of all time were religious. Surely, at least one of these found God in their research?

But if my opponent is right, then the only way to prove God is to assume he exists. He also says the only way to disprove God is to assume he doesn't exist. I don't need to do this. I need only examine the concept of omnibenevolent against the evil in reality, the omniscience against the ignorance revealed in scripture, and the omnipotence against horrible design flaws.

Nothing I have said has been refuted by Con, only the way in which I say it, which he says presumes God. Now, how can it be that I believe in logic and science and moral standards but not God? Surely, I need God for this? Here is his argument:

Premise 1: I need to believe in God to use logic and science and moral arguments.

Premise 2: I use logic and science and moral arguments.

Conclusion: I believe in God.

Now, according to Con, both premises are true. Therefore, the conclusion is true. This is valid logic, but it is not true logic. Why? Because one of the premises is wrong. The question is which one. Either I have not to this point invoked any arguments using logic, or science, or morality; or I don't need to presume God to use these things.

Further Deconstruction of TAG

Con has said time and again that the Christian worldview is the only one to account for logic, science and morality. That's not true. So does Islam. So does Judaism. So does Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and any religion you could name. But, or course, one needs none of these. I have shown why science and logic exists by necessity (for itself, like math) and is not dependent on a designer. I have also asserted (morality can't be proven as fact, as Con has said) that morality cannot come from Christianity unless we allow that torturing a human being to make them a scapegoat is a morally good act, and if this is true, well, there's no hope of me appealing to your sense of morality, is there?

My conclusion from last round is still intact, so I apologize if this one sounds repetitive.

Closing Statements

After you finish reading Con's Round 4, I want you to come back and read this closing statement to see if anything has changed.

Con has created his own straw man resolution and not argued for it very well. Let me remind him of what the resolution is: The Abrahamic God almost certainly does not exist.

Even if every single thing that Con has said is absolutely true and valid and perfect, he would not have made ONE SINGLE POINT for the existence of anything but a deistic god. Even is he does make one single point towards the resolution being false, he will have done so in the final round, to which I cannot respond, and should therefore be disregarded, because new arguments should never be introduced that your opponent can't respond to.

Think about that. Even if everything I have said is wrong (it isn't), and everything Con has said is right (it isn't), I would still win because there has not been one argument made against the resolution that has been openly presented. That is why I have already won this debate before the final round is even over.

Conduct: Con has tried on three seperate occasions to change the resolution to suit his needs
Spelling and Grammer: Equal. Vote on who was more enjoyable to read, I guess
More Convincing Arguments: Not only were my arguments not all logical fallacies (his one was), but mine were the only ones that regarded the resolution
Sources: Equal.

I would like to thank Con and the readers.

[Citations in comments]


I want to thank my opponent for his speedy and thorough responses in this debate and seeing it through to the end.

Pro is tasked to prove that the Abrahamic God almost certainly does not exist. I am tasked to prove that the resolution is false.


Stupid Design

The resolution is a claim to an objective truth. Pro doesn't think it is too much to say that, "Objectively, a being which is not adept at surviving in its environment would not be well designed." This is ipse dixit, for he does not substantiate his claim that humans' adeptness at surviving the environment is objectively true. If it is not supported, then this is nothing more than Pro's opinion. Pro wants to objectively prove the Abrahamic God almost certainly doesn't exist because in his personal assessment, humans are stupidly designed.

Impossible by His Own Nature

Pro appears to be accusing me of not using reason after he just tried to convince the readers that his opinion about the design of the universe proves God almost certainly doesn't exist. I think this speaks for itself.


Pro openly admits that he is appealing to his own sense of morality when condemning the Abrahamic God's actions. Once again, Pro is using his opinion to prove that the Abrahamic God almost certainly does not exist.

I'm not invoking God when I appeal to an objective morality. I'm pointing to the fact that Pro needs objective morality to make this argument relevant but he cannot account for it without the existence of God.


Pro uses poor hermeneutics to show God as being inconsistent. This is an error of exegesis on Pro's part, not a logical contradiction. God can be omniscient and still test his followers. There is no evidence, even in the conversation between God and Job, that God was mistaken or lacked knowledge. It is Pro's needless hyper-literal translation making this claim.


Pro offers only rhetoric and no rebuttal here. He rants about God being a tyrant without refuting my case that the problem of evil is not a logical problem.

Epistemology and Science

Pro confesses that he is using the scientific worldview, also known as scientism1. It asserts that science, and only science, can bring objective truth. This is a self-refuting philosophy, for science cannot prove that only science can bring objective truth. This only strengthens my previous rebuttals to this point, namely that Pro is erroneous is presuming that God must be proven in the same way that science proves the existence of, say, electrons.

Pro asks, "How can it be that I believe in logic and science and moral standards but not God?" I never said Pro doesn't believe in these things. I said Pro is taking these thing for granted despite the fact that his worldview cannot account for them, regardless if that worldview is scientism or atheism.

Defense of TAG

Pro argues that Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and another religion account for logic, science, and morality. First of all, he doesn't say how. This is begging the question! I have repeatedly asked Pro to account for these things, and his response is akin to saying, "I don't have to provide an atheistic account, nor do I want to. In fact, I'll just drop a bunch of religions on the table and call it a day." This is not a refutation, it is a red herring. He is dodging the very philosophical questions being asked of him.

Pro did appeal to scientism, rather than atheism, as a worldview. I already showed the scientism is self-refuting, so there is no need to belabor the point. I will note however, that scientism is just a form of atheism, as it presupposes only natural explanations, not supernatural ones. Thus, it suffers the same failings as the atheistic worldview.


Pro started this debate and we both accepted the burden of proof. He is tasked with proving that the Abrahamic God almost certainly does not exist. He has given us opinions about Christian theology and lots of rhetoric about how much he despises the notion of God, but he has not offered one single argument that could withstand logical scrutiny.

He claims I created a straw man resolution by asserting that TAG only argues for a deistic God. Has he not being actually reading the argument? It argues that the Christian worldview—which most certainly presupposes the Abrahamic God—accounts for the necessary preconditions for logic, science, and morality. So, this accusation falls flat on its face.

Indeed, Pro hasn't addressed TAG at all head on. I asked him in every round to account for logical laws, the uniformity of nature, and moral absolutes. He never did this, opting instead to just treat the request as ridiculous or to offer anecdotes in place of actual philosophical justifications.

He then has the gall to claim that if I make one single assertion against the resolution that I've committed some kind of misconduct. Worse, he says he would have won the debate outright! Indeed, it is against debate etiquette to introduce new arguments in the final round, but I have not done that. I have, however, offered new rebuttals in the final round, which I believe I am permitted to do. I think perhaps the conduct vote, in this case, is more likely to swing in my direction.

In summary, Pro has been begging the questions throughout the debate. He begs readers to accept only scientific/evidential arguments for God and not philosophical ones. He begs the readers to just accept logic as necessarily self-existing without answering the questions TAG set forth. He begs the readers to accept the principle of induction. He begs the readers to accept his moral opinions and his opinions about the design of humans and the universe as proof that the Abrahamic God certainly does not exist.

When weighing both sides, it seems reasonable to conclude that the resolution is negated.


Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Shawn613 4 years ago
God of the Gaps: If it can't be understood without God, it's God. Same thing they said about the sun thousands of years ago.
Posted by Sojourner 4 years ago
Pro dodged the atheistic justification for logic
Posted by Shawn613 4 years ago


Go to Chapter 38. Also, observe the beauty of the writing. Some great poetic fiction.
Posted by Shawn613 4 years ago
Thanks for the tip. It's a lot better for organization.
Posted by KRFournier 4 years ago
I should add that you must always take care to review your submissions carefully when using the Rich Text editor. It is generous to say the Rich Text editor is glitchy. I tend to write my submissions in Word, copy and paste them into the Rich Text editor, then carefully fix all the extra spaces the Rich Text editor added in the process.
Posted by KRFournier 4 years ago
To answer your question, when you are editing your text in the editor, there is a hyperlink above the edit window. Click it to switch to Rich Text mode.
Posted by Shawn613 4 years ago
I suppose it is agnosticism in the same sense I can't prove the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist. But I'm Atoothfairyist because I can't prove he doesn't exist.

Also, the claim for the existence of something puts the burden of proof on the claimant. The burden of proof for the existence of God is always on the theist, but that's too easy.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
So God may or may not exist? Isn't that agnosticism?

I'm pretty sure Pro has the full BOP as they have made the claim and now have to prove it.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 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 Checkmark1 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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Both were goo arguments, but Con's grammar was better.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Granted, both were rather condescending. But I'd say overall conduct goes to Con. Arguments to Pro for refuting all of Cons arguments. Which were done rather masterfully, I might add. Sources to go to Pro though. He had more sources. They weren't incredibly useful in his argument but they were reliable.