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

The christian god likely exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 3/5/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,512 times Debate No: 21762
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (51)
Votes (4)




I rarely do religion, so my opponent might get an easy win. I am arguing god probably not exist.


The BOP is shared 50-50, and we must prove this:

CON: Chances are god does not exist
Pro: Chances are god exists


Christian Science . the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.

Basically some all powerful deity that cares for his people and created the universe.


No semantics with the title
8000 characters
1st round acceptance (for pro, I got to do all that lovely stuff ^)


I accept the burden con has handed me to prove that "Chances are God exists".

As we are arguing the Christian God, I think if any disagreement comes about on Gods' attributes it must be decided on by what the scripture says. Thus I neither fully accept or decline pros definition, as the neccesary definition would be way to long to put in the debate, but I do accept that we will be debating the Christian God in particular.

Con has stated that BOP is shared so I will let him get the ball rolling.
Debate Round No. 1


I am glad to debate such an experienced DDO member in this debate.


My case will be revolving around the case of evil. In my opinion a loving god cannot exist when there is evil.


To prove this I must prove god is in-fact an all loving and all powerful.

The bible states he loves us all and would even give up his son for even the sinners. [1] Further more he states his love by stating that he will forgive all sin [2] This is love how? This means even if you are a total scum, he will still love you and heal you. Also in the feast before passover it talks about god loving the world unto its end. [3]

He loves us all, that is fairly given, now before I make my case I will prove he is all powerful.

God created the earth and the heavens with his own power supposedly, also the bible states if he can do this he can do anything, and nothing is to hard for him. [4] Also the bible states that he can accomplish anything, even things we cannot conceive. [5]

Ok, god is all loving and all powerful, so what? I will explain in my case.

~My argument: The problem of gods existence and evil~

~P1~ God is all loving and powerful, and if this is true it is impossible evil could exist.
~P2~ There is evil in the world we live in.
~P3~ Many evils are not logically valid if god exists
~C~ Therefore god cannot exist

P1: God is all loving and powerful, and evil cannot exist logically under this

As I have stated the bible says many times god is all loving and powerful. [3] Of this is the case then why does evil exist? Evil in our world is unavoidable. Example: I dropped a rock on my foot, and I allow an excruciating surgery to fix it, but it could be considered evil. People get killed every day, tune into the news. Recently there was an ohio shooting, [6] and that is considered evil.

"on the face of it, the idea that God may well permit gratuitous evil is absurd. After all, if God can get what He wants without permitting some particular horror (or anything comparably bad), why on earth would He permit it?" [7]

Gods existence seems logically dis-proven on this point as as he wants to prevent and protect us, why would he permit its existence?

P2: There is evil in this world

This point is not deniable. There is evil in the world we live in. The bible itself concedes the point that we have all sinned in the face of the lord. [8] There is murder, rape, robbery, assault, stealing, cheating etc. I expect I need say little more on this point as it is pretty much a fact, and little need be said more about P1 as evils compatibility with god is zero.

P3: Many evils are not logically valid if god exists

I will first state the 10 commandments:

1. "You shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God.
5. Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.” [9]

Many people break these rules he "made" to protect us, if he was all loving then he would make sure we never did this. All these evils are not needed in our society, and if he truly loved us as the scripture says therefore this would never happen. As these evils are committed it is safe to assume he is non existent. Many children die of other non necessary evils such as down syndrome. [10] This evil is totally uncalled for, if he truly existed then why would he let these evils persevere? He is all powerful and loving, yet let this happen, this is a logical minus in his existence.

"In light of our experience and knowledge, of the variety and scale of human and animal suffering in our world, the idea that none of this suffering could have been prevented by an omnipotent being without thereby losing some greater good or permitting an evil at least as bad seems an extraordinary, absurd idea, quite beyond our belief." [11]

C: Therefore there is no all powerful and loving god

If there is no powerful and loving god therefore the christian god cannot exist. I have proven god cannot exist with the classical "problem of evil" Argument. I think there not a probability in the Christians god existence, therefore I urge a CON vote.

[1] John 3:16
[2] Jeremiah 31:34
[3] The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995
[4] Jeremiah 32:17
[5] Psalm 8:3, 4
[7] Howard-Snyder, Daniel, and Frances Howard-Snyder. 1999. "Is Theism Compatible with Gratuitous Evil?" (accessed through PDF) {}
[8] Romans 3:23
[9] Exodus 20:1-17
[10] God? Debate between a Christian and an Atheist, William lane Craig and Walter Sinnott Armstrong, 2004 (accessed by PDF) {}
[11] Rowe, William, The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism (accessed by PDF) {}


I thank con for his argument.

I would like to remind the viewers that the BOP is shared, thus it is necessary that con and I both establish our case as well as refute the others in order to fulfill our burden.

My case

For this debate I will be defending the moral argument for the existence of God. The representation of the moral argument that I will be using is derived from various moral arguments, but the formation is self devised.

P.1 Without God, morality has to be explained by naturalism. (By lack of other cause)
P.2 A moral code exists. (By observation)
P.3 A moral code requires a basis or source. (By necessity)
P.4 A natural moral code lacks a basis or source. (By definition)
P.5 God can be the only other explanation for a moral code. (P.1)
P.6 God is the only possible source or basis for a universal moral code. (P.1, P.3- P.5)
P.7 God is the best explanation for a moral code. (P.1, P.3- P.6)
C. Therefore God exists. (P.1- P.7)

Naturalism co-existing with moral objectivity. Sb-P. Naturalism cannot account as a basis for morality.
The very idea of a natural moral code refutes the whole basis of what a universal moral code is. No moral code can be naturally formed, because the very premise "natural", refutes the whole idea. A moral code needs a basis. In fact it necessarily requires it. If there were no God, metaphysics naturalism would be the next viable belief. Every part of our body therefore would have had to have evolved, which would include our minds. In other words naturalism would have to entirely create us. With this fact in place there could be no way that objective morality could exist. For why would it? We would lack the necessary tool to make right/wrong judgments. Metaphysics naturalism could be the only possible source, and naturalism is not a valid basis at all. Thus morality would be variant. If there is no greater power, than there is no basis for morality and thus there could be no such thing as a moral code. Morality could not exist considering these facts, and God can be the only explanation.[1][2][3]

Existence of a moral code[2]

Let me make it clear that by moral code I do not mean all moral facts are objective, but that a basic moral code exists and that some objective moral facts do indeed exist. I think it has been established that naturalism and a moral code cannot co-exist, so now the only thing to do is prove that more than likely a moral code does exist. Thus I will have to argue that the chances of there being a moral code is more probable than morality being entirely subjective. By observation, moral objectivity is evident. Cons case itself would lose all credibility without objective morality. In fact cons whole argument is based on one large moral judgment. Thus in essence, by attempting to disprove God morally, my opponent is helping to demonstrate my case. Morality is not something that is flippant in nature; it is polar. Certain actions are blatantly obviously wrong, such as shoving shards of glass into a two year old babies eyes simply out of pure delight. Con himself makes the claim that evil exists in this world. He cannot make this claim unless a moral code exists, for if it did not than all moral judgments would be subjective and therefore cons great moral judgment would be largely flawed and evil could not exist.[4][5]

Now there might be certain people who do not have much of a moral sense, however when we look at these people we will always find that they have some kind of mental disorder. Thus they are not applicable for by mutation their moral sense has been skewed, not by the subjectivity of moral laws.[6]

Moral and sense perception comparative

A moral code can be demonstrated by showing that there is no categorical difference between moral and sense perception. Our sense perceptions are often prima facie reliable. They allow us to perceive facts and make judgments. Hearing a sound behind me allows me to reason that someone is approaching. My sense perception allowed me to perceive a certain fact. There is no reason to believe moral and sense perceptions are non-comparative. Our sense perceptions are within a reasonable amount accurate and our moral perception would have to be greatly skewed if we do not confirm to the fact that they are analogous. [2]

I have thus proven that God is a far better explanation for morality than naturalism, and that objective morality does indeed exist.

Cons case

Con presents an argument which would be best defined as the Evidential problem of evil. (EPOE)

This is a very common argument against the existence of God however by pointing out a few facts, and some of cons logical fallacies and unaddressed assumptions, I think it can be reasonably refuted.

God as all-loving
Firstly, the cons argument completely falls on P.1, the basis of his argument. My opponent reasons that an all-loving God could not co-exist with evil. However what Con has failed to do is show that God is all-loving. He attempts to, but an attempt is all we are left with.

John 3:16

The passage says "God so loved the world". This I must assume is cons reasons for his concluding that God loves everybody. However it does not mean that at all. God loved the world. Does this mean he loved everybody in the world? Not at all. He loved the world as a whole. Emily loves Irish people. Must we take that statement as meaning Emily loves every Irish person? Of course not. The analogy is directly applicable. The Bible also in fact say God hated Essau.[7]

Jeremiah 31:34

Fails when looking at context. This passage is talking about Israel. Not everybody. Therefore it does not prove God loves everybody.

God loving the world unto its end?

I would like the viewers to drop this evidence. Con does not provide any verses. He cite the Bible as his source only. This is a very poor form of sourcing because basically he's asking whoever wants to find this passage to just search for it himself. Therefore this should be dropped on basis of inadequate proof.

The ten commandments
I’m not sure I get my opponents argument here. He says the ten commandments were supposedly written to protect us yet people still break them. However I see no reason to believe the ten commandments were written to protect us rather than instruct the Israelites hundreds of years ago.

God unfathomable. Con arguing from the unknown.

We really cannot presume to fathom Gods ways. If God exists are we likely to know why He does/allows certain things? The differences between God and man are maximally huge, therefore I say no. God is of a whole other nature, essence, being, dimension, character, and magnitude. What is known about God is actually very minimum. By very definition Gods ways are unfathomable even according to scripture.[8] We cannot comprehend Him and thus arguments like the POE fall. By attempting to use this argument con is reaching into the GREAT unknown, thus committing a fallacy.

Irenaean theodicy

Irenaeus argued that the existence of evil is necessary for human progression, and that it allows Gods purpose to be naturally fulfilled.[9] Humans were made in the image of God having the potential to achieve moral perfection or likeness of God. Free will is necessary to achieve such perfection and humans must experience suffering, God being at an epistemic distance from humanity. John Hick argues that the universe exists simply as a “vale of soul-making”.[10] Therefore suffering and evil must occur in order to complete Gods purpose. We are created in a state of imperfection as part of a two-stage creation process. Humans are initially made in the image of God being flawed and incomplete; or imperfect. The next stage is the likeness of God in which they achieve their potential and reach full development.[11]

Con pulls at emotional strings but his case fails logically.

There is SO much more to be said for both arguments, but character limits restrain me.

Sources in link as premised.

Debate Round No. 2


~His case!

P1: Morality and naturalism

Yes, it can be explained by just that. Morals are made by human social behaviors and actually even other social animals. [1] Some claim the morality comes from the natural world itself. [2] Morality is a social construct that comes from people think is right and wrong. [3] Morals, though, do not come from religion. [4] Moral is based on what society thinks is right and wrong. [5] If this is the case then god needn't explain morals as it is people's views not gods views that create morality.

P2: A moral code exists

Agreed, but once again morals can in fact change. [6] But if this is the case then either there is multiple gods or there is no god. Both of those prove my point of the christian god likely does not exist as you can only believe in one god according to christian religion. [7]

P3: A moral code requires a source

Agreed, we just disagree from what the source is. Once again, in the US morals have shifted. [8] If this is the case god cannot exist or gods swap out, both prove my point that the christian god therefore can't exist.

P4: A natural moral code lacks a source

This is false.

"On this view, moral codes are ultimately founded on emotional instincts and intuitions that were selected for in the past because they aided survival and reproduction (inclusive fitness)." [9]

The source is evolutionary and social patterns that tell us what is right and wrong, that is where morals come from.

P5: God is the only other explanation for the moral code

Not really, I have stated multiple other moral sources. [1, 2, 3, 9]

P6: God is the only possible source for the moral code

possible: being within the limits of ability, capacity, or realization [10] In this case you are false as anything fits into that. In my capacity I could think aliens gave us morals, then it is possible aliens give us morals. God is not the only explanation, when there is more then one explanation then it is POSSIBLE that the other explanation is correct. This argument is very faulty as the definition of possible overrules this idea, as there are many explanations.

P7: God is the best explanation for the Moral code

How is this possible? Liberal and Conservative Christians disagree on the exact moral codes. [11] If this is the case then god cannot be true. He now has 2 moral codes? Your argument is then:

"1. What God says is good.

2. God is the standard by which good is defined." [12]

Morals are not dependent on god at all, if this was the case and he spoke to us then there would be no strife. [12]

C: Therefore god exists

--> Morals where not made by god
--> There are may explanations for morals
--> If god has one set moral code, then why do people differ on what it is?
--> God didn't create morals
--> Your argument debunked

~Defense of my case~

I worded it really oddly, so I will quote it off someone else:

"(P1) If there were an all-powerful and all-good God, then there would not be any evil in the world unless that evil is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good.

(P2) There is evil in the world.

(P3) Some of that evil is not logically necessary for any adequately compensating good.

(C) Therefore, there is no God who is all powerful and all good." [13]

Ok, here we go.

P1: God is all powerful and loving

The bible verse says he loves the world. Lets see a Christians take on it:

"What a wonderful truth!!! The verse doesn't say that the great heart of God only loves Christians or religious people. The verse doesn't say that God only loves righteous people or churchgoers. The verse doesn't say that God only loves Bible-thumpers. The Word of God is clear that God loves “the world” (and that includes everyone). No matter who you are, God truly loves you. " [14]

Jeremiah 31:34

May you please put it into context? Because here it shows he actually forgives all sins.

"And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." [15]

P2: There is evil in this world

I extend, although we agree here so... Yeah.

P3: Some of that evil is not logically necessary for any adequately compensating good. [13]

--> Ten commandments

What I mean here is god made these rules that are trying to "protect us". If he had these rules, and many of the rules prevent many horrendous things, then why would he let us break them? These rules are about protecting people like you and me.

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till Heaven and Earth Pass, one jot or one tittle shall in No Wise Pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled.” [16]

This means do not break the law of the prophets.

--> God unknown

Then it is highly possible you are actually false as well, this argument is self defeating. If yo and I can not fathom god, then how do we know he created the moral construct?

"Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns" [17]

He is powerful, omnipotent, therefore if he is all powerful then why can he not stop evil from occurring? This is the question you must answer to defeat the argument.

--> Irenaean theodicy

This argument was CREATED after the bible was written. [18] For a creationist how is this a problem? This means a random dude just kinda made something up. The arguments presented in the theodicy is everyone goes to heaven. This differs with other christian concepts. But seriously: was evil like the holocaust beneficial to society? [19]

~POE picture~

Picture time!

[7] Exodus 20:1-17
[15] King James Bible
[16] Matthew 5:17-18
[17] Revelation 19:6


Unfortunately my opponent has conceded the debate in the comments section.

I might have responded in part, but I probably won't have time tommorow because of homework and need to finish up some things tonight that are now more important.
Debate Round No. 3


I know nothing about morality XD. VOTE PRO

also I hoped you liked the picture, it made it look cool.


Nicely sums up the POE, though flawed.

Vote pro I guess.
Debate Round No. 4
51 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
Yes but if God had a very broad plan, intervening might go against that plan. Having children die might not be a specific part of his plan but stopping evil might be contrary to what he wants. It's impossible to know what his plan is because an omnipotent benevolent supreme beings character is by necessity impossible to understand. You can only make speculations. Moreover, an all-powerful God would be able to satisfy whatever suffering happened in the previous life in the afterlife. That could cancel out all the trade-offs of his plan and make it justified since he could more than satisfy anyone's hurt.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
Just happened to see this debate. The Argument from Evil is:
"If an all-powerful, loving, and all-knowing God exists, the world would be better than it is." To defeat the argument, it must be argued that God's plan would be upset if one less child died of disease or if a drought were a day shorter.
Posted by Tetriste 4 years ago
None presented valid arguments. phantom did present arguments that a god likely exists, just not the christian god specifically. I also do believe that a god exists, but is it the christian one, or another one?
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
Well I don't know what you base that on, but I will admit I haven't studied morality a whole lot so I would not be surprised if I made a some errors. As for the debate, I would very much love too. I'll only be able to do it by saturday at the least though. This week is looking to be pretty hectic, plus my lap-tops not working. Just send me the challenge and I'll accept when I can.
Posted by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
In fact, I challenge you to a debate on which provides a more plausible explanation for the existence of objective morality: naturalism or God.
Posted by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
Phantom, you keep saying 16kadams doesn't understand objective morality (maybe he doesn't, he conceded he knows little about the subject of morality in general), but I gotta say, it's clear neither do you.
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
@Zaradi, how is that? Cons first round wasn't bad, but his second I found had lots of errors. I'll just sumerize some, because I feel like it.

1. He says he believes in objective morality but also says that it changes. That is not objective morality thus he fails to understand my argument.

2. Agrees that morality requires a basis but fails to support that. Instincts and natural intuition is not what we're talking about.

3. For P.6 he uses an absurd semantical argument on the word impossible. Stating the premise is flawed because anything is possible. But then a few lines latter says "How is this possible?" This is just pure semantics. Semantics on the resolution of a debate I think are legit. But when you make an argument it's just bad conduct for your opponent to be niggly and completely literal on definitions.

4. For my conclusion he uses the following reasoning to sumerize.

1. Liberal and Conservative Christians disagree on the exact moral codes.
2. Therefore God would have to have two morals
3. If this is the case God can't be true


5. Ignores me a WHOLE lot. Really allot of what he said was just making his own argument against my premises as if I had never even made a defence.

6. Basically straw mans my "God unfathomable" argument by saying that it is self-refuting. Unfortuenately Con was the one trying to make judgements off the extreme unkown not I. I could go further but theres no need.

7. Perhaps the worst part was his his response to the irenaen theodicy. He claims that because of the time it was written it is falsified. I don't even get his reasoning. Even if it was written yesterday it would still not matter.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
I thought I was being owned.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Lolfail 16K. You actually had this debate in the bag from the skimming I did. But I didn't read in depth, so I may have to do that.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: I'll give con two points for making a cool picture, and pro three points for failing to concede.
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 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: Concession...
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 4 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: Conceded.