The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

The existence of the Christian God is logically indefensible.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/28/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 983 times Debate No: 41363
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




I would argue that the existence of a Christian God is logically indefensible. The first round of this debate is acceptance.

Rules -

1) I have limited the acceptance criteria to having completed at least one debate, in order to avoid those not truly interested.
2) No ad hominem or straw man please , I am looking purely for intelligent and enlightening debate.


Sure, I look forward to it.
State your case
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you Nzrsaa for accepting this debate, good luck, and look I forward to an enlightening exchange. I intend to prove unequivocally that the Christian God cannot be defended by logic or reason. I will do this primarily through exposing several major contradictions and criticisms of God, followed by ruling out the major arguments for logically supporting God and finally by explaining how faith, the last remaining argument cannot function as a reasonable means of proof.

Firstly then, within the very idea of a Christian God lies several intrinsic flaws. The inconsistent triad argument, states that you cannot have an omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent God (all of which are strongly argued by the Christian faith) in the same universe that sin exists. This is because surely a God which held all of these properties would be powerful enough to detect sin, and loving enough to remove it, and since this has not occurred, it implies that at least one of these propositions must be untrue. Yet if God is not omnipotent or omniscient, then he is not truly a God, and certainly not the Christian God of which the motion speaks. If God is not omni-benevolent, then this goes against the Christian concepts laid out in the New Testament of God"s agape love. As such, unless the opposition can provide a solution this problem, then the Christian God is logically indefensible.

Another contradiction is less often used, however in my opinion is equally potent. The Bible for the Christian faith states that God is omniscient, and thus can know all that has ever been, all that is, and all that will be. Yet, it is believed by the majority of the Christian faith that free will is a core part of existence under God. These two propositions are contradictory, as if God knows the future of each and every human, what choices they will make, and how their lives will end. This means that humans cannot truly have free will, or that God is not omniscient. Furthermore, if the opposition argues that free will does not exist, and attempts to re-interpret such passages in the Bible which state that it does, then this once more proves God illogical. This is because this would imply that those who commit sin, and are thus condemned to eternal suffering, were created to do so by God, and have no choice in the matter. This means that God is not omni-benevolent because he is specifically damning members of humanity.

If you can rule out both of these contradictions through logical means, then you may wish to argue Gods existence on one of the following key grounds: the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, both of which I will now disprove. If you hold any other logic based argument for the existence of God then please state it in your next argument so that I may address it.

The cosmological argument states that since we can observe a chain of causation in existence, and that every cause needs a preceding cause, there must be a first cause, and this must be God. However, this is logically flawed, as shown by David Hume, who stated several criticisms. Firstly, that we are moving from our surroundings which we can practically perceive to have causes, to a vast universe wherein we cannot know if the same rules apply, in the quantifier shift fallacy, and thus you cannot infer from this evidence that a first cause or God exists. Secondly, that there is no reason why a chain of causes cannot go on forever, and infinity is a very realistic prospect, especially when supported by modern science revealing the eternal constants of matter and energy. Thirdly, that even if we were to believe this argument of causation, it is not at all that case that this proves the Christian God. Such a first cause could be a universal anomaly, or any number of other Gods, as Hume states, it could be "little green men."

The teleological argument as Paley states it takes the form of the argument from design. Paley stated that if you found a rock and a watch in the wild, you would assume the watch was designed where the rock was not due to its complexity, so there must be a designer for the universe, which must be God. Yet order in the universe can be entirely explained through methods other than God, for example evolution, and natural selection to explain DNA. Not only this, but as Hume stated the universe is more like a "cabbage than a watch." This is because it is inherently unordered, with seemingly immensely chaotic events taking place on a galactic scale constantly, and evil and suffering on earth would also reveal either the failure of a creator, or that there was none. Thus there is no need for a God to explain the appearance of design.

If then, the Christian God cannot be proven logical by the two key arguments in support of such, and the contradictions within his very existence, then faith is all that remains to support God. However, faith is not a reasonable form of argument, as I could suggest that there is a teapot in orbit of Pluto at present. I have no argument for such, and nothing to support it, but you cannot disprove it. This is clearly not logical and thus faith cannot align with the motion. And in conclusion, the existence of a Christian God is logically indefensible.

Thank you for your time.



Hi, thank you for your response.

I think that what i will do, is refute your points and then offer one more argument to support Christianity.

(1) The first objection my opponent has towards the concept of God, is that an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God cannot co-exist with sin. However, Sin by definition, is: "an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law" ( source: ) and so sin is completely compatible with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient being, as all it means is going against that being's will. Considering we are free creatures, to let us be free is 'more good' than God intervening.
(2) My opponent's second objection is that an omniscient God and free-will cannot co-exist. However, this is just not true; there is no contradiction between the two. All it means is that God knows what we would freely do in any set of circumstances. By no stretch does it mean that we have no free-will; all it means is that God knows what we will do, considering we have free-will.

For the Cosmological argument, I will respond to Pro's objections, then offer an improved argument for Pro to respond to.
Firstly, Pro cites Hume, and says that we cannot say that the universe has a cause, as the same rules may not apply to the universe itself. However, it is a basic fact that being cannot come from non-being. That is logically impossible, and contradicts metaphysical laws - out of nothing, nothing comes.
Additionally, we now know, due to modern science, that the universe does indeed has a cause. This is because of the Big Bang - and so we know that the laws of cause and effect are actually applicable to the universe itself.
However, it is up to Pro to show just why the same rules DON'T apply. The burden of proof is on Pro, as we are using inductive reasoning to suggest that the universe must have a cause.
Secondly, my opponent says that a chain of causes can go on forever. But, an infinite regress is impossible - because otherwise nothing would ever exist. At every moment, a cause would be producing an effect, and the universe would never come into being. By the mere fact that the universe exists, we can say that there was no infinite regress - the universe is an 'ending' in the chain of causes.
Finally, my opponent says that the Cosmological argument does not prove the Christian God. And I agree with this. But the argument doesn't set out to achieve that - rather, it seeks to prove a necessary being that is the first cause of everything that exists. This is essentially what we call 'God'.

This is the improved argument, as described by William Lane Craig.
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
3) therefore the universe has a cause

This cause has to transcend both space and time - and so be timeless, immaterial, changeless, hugely powerful and personal. (Personal simply because the being decided to create the universe)
Only 2 possible things fit in this description; either abstract objects (such as numbers), or an unembodied mind (so, 'God').
Abstract objects cannot cause anything. So the cause of the universe is an unembodied mind (so, God).

We know premise 1 to be true because of the simple fact, 'out of nothing, nothing comes'. Being cannot come from non-being. And, if something did come from nothing, it then becomes inexplicable why anything comes into being from nothing. Why only universes? Why don't horses come into being from nothing?

We know premise 2 to be true because we now know that the universe came into being at the big bang.

The conclusion then follows.

Firstly, Pro states that life could have arose from means other than God - such as evolution. But merely because life evolved does not at all imply that God was not behind it. Moreover, there is no reason to think a blind process such as Darwinian Evolution can account for such delicate codes like DNA. In fact, for Darwinian evolution to take place on it's own could never happen in the short amount of time life has been on earth.
Next, Pro cites Hume. But how can you make parallels between cabbage and life on earth? I think that is simply obscene, to compare something such as intelligent life to a vegetable. I don't see how intelligent life is at all unordered or chaotic.
My opponent also says that considering the evil and suffering on earth, it implies the failure of the ceator. But according to Biblical Christianity, it is rather the failure of men that causes all of the evil and suffering - as described in the fall of man in Genesis 3.
I think that the teleological argument stretches much further than merely life on earth. I think that it also includes the position of the earth itself, and also the fine-tuning of the original conditions of the universe.

As for your example, i don't think that it works. Because we CAN disprove that there is no teapot orbiting around pluto - We have positive proof that no such teapot has been launched into space.
Whereas we can give some evidences for the existence of God - as has been provided in this debate, assuming they are sound which I intend to prove.

I would now give you a historical argument for Jesus' resurrection, but it takes too much time to explain. So instead, I'll give you an Ontological argument, and a link to a resurrection argument.
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) Therefore a maximally great being exists

I look forward to my opponent's response.

I don't have enough space, but here's a link

God Bless
Debate Round No. 2


I thank the opposition for his response, and for my second argument I will now explain why my criticisms of the Christian God still hold, and why these more modern arguments are flawed.

Initially I would like to emphasise that it is not just disobedience towards God that I refer to as evil in this argument. For example, an earthquake is entirely unrelated to human action or disobedience, meaning that such was supposedly directly designed by God, thus once more showing a lack of care for the destruction this earthquake causes, or a lack of ability to prevent it. Either way the Christian God does not stand.

The opposition states that "God knows what we would freely do in any set of circumstances," and yet if this were the case, God would know what a potential murderer would do in a situation that tempted such an action, and this was known from the moment of the murderer"s creation, meaning that this murderer had no other choice, as this was his predestined life. This not only means that free will does not exist with God"s omniscience, but that sin occurred as a result of God"s creation, once more causing the paradox of the inconsistent triad.

Regarding the cosmological argument I will now address my opponent's rebuttals. Firstly that it is important to note, that external to the universe, we cannot be certain that the laws of logic apply, and likely they do not. As such, stating that nothing coming from nothing is "logically impossible" is not a valid argument. Additionally regarding the Big Bang, this does not provide a valid explanation of the cause of the universe, because it still requires the provision of a cause of the bang, and the matter involved. In order to defend the idea of God, it must be directly proved that the cause is this specific God.

In the quantifier shift fallacy, "the same rules DON"T (sic) apply," because as I have stated previously, anything creating the universe would be external to such, and thus we cannot be assured that the universal laws of logic and causation still apply. Once more, William Lane Craig"s argument is guilty of this fallacy, as I would amend his first proposition to "everything that we can observe that begins to exist has a cause," since we cannot assume rules for entities we have not observed, potentially outside the universe. As such, since the first proposition refers to logic and observation, where the second is external to the universe, this argument is invalid. The reason horses are separate than universes, is because the universe is the state wherein the specific rules of logic were know reside, whereas horses do not hold a specific, and separate logical rule set, and as such this example does not apply. I would assert that as a result of this external nature of a creator, it is impossible to logically defend the existence of a God, not only through causation, but in general, thus leaving faith as the only possible argument.

In terms of the teleological argument, the opposition states that "merely because life evolved does not at all imply that God was not behind it." However I think he misunderstands that I do not use evolution to rule out a God, but to rule out the need for a God, and thus the function of the teleological argument. Evolution would function perfectly well without his influence. It is postulated that DNA would have first evolved simple self-replicating peptide, containing no more than 32 amino acids, and thus a very primitive form of natural selection could take place, and would not be too delicate for Darwinian Evolution. The opposition's next point regarding evolution rather puzzles me, as there has been life on this planet for around 3.8 billion years (BBC Nature) which is certainly enough for the albeit slow course of natural evolution.

The opposition should note that I did not compare intelligent life to a cabbage, but the universe as a whole, which I'm sure we can unanimously find chaotic. Once again, I must point out that a significant portion of evil and suffering on earth is completely separate to "the failure of men," such as natural disasters, (which before my opponent mentions environmental pollution, occurred long before industrialisation.) This therefore must be related to God, and thus his potential failed creation, or lack of existence. The universal fine-tuning the opposition mentions, is rendered invalid as a result of the multi-verse theory, where with infinite attempts, the conditions for life in the universe would certainly occur.

As to the ontological argument presented, despite its deductive style I would argue its invalidity.

1)It is possible that a machine preventing any maximally great being from existing exists.
2)If it is possible that such a machine exists, then a maximally great being cannot exist.
3)Therefore a maximally great being does not exist.

Thus the issue with this argument style is presented, in that I can postulate anything in a deductive sense regardless of reason. Furthermore, my main rebuttal to this argument would be that once more, anything external to the universe, anything maximally great, exists external to the laws of logic, and thus logical argument cannot be applied.

Regarding faith, I would support my example by stating that we cannot definitively prove that a collision of rocks in space did not by freak anomaly, form an entity which we know to be a teapot, or that some exotic alien race created and launched such an entity. As such this still relies upon faith. I accept that evidences can be given for God, but my argument on faith was purely to state that if the logical arguments regarding God are proved invalid, as I have shown, then he cannot exist.

I can't reply to arguments only stated through links, apologies for the word count, but I am under the same restrictions as you.

Overall then, as a result of these arguments, I must once more state that the existence of the Christian God is logically indefensible.

Thank you for your time.



Hi Pro!
Sorry for the late reply.
I will respond to each point you make.

Thanks for clearing it up. Put simply, the answer is that we are not omniscient. With our limited minds, we cannot say with any sort of certainty that one particular piece of suffering is evil. For all we know, the effect of one piece of suffering may not arise hundreds of years from now. To give an example: Pro cites earthquakes as evil that God could prevent. However, for all we know, an earthquake that kills 100,000 people could prevent famine from overpopulation in 100 years that would have killed 2 million people. In fact, I would stress that it is likely that this would be the case.
So, we just don't know what the effects of one piece of suffering could be. We are not omniscientfoot is likely that God could have a morally sufficient reason to permit suffering.

Merely because God forknows what we will do, by no stretch means that we do not have free-will. Regardless, the murderer still freely chose to murder. Whether God foreknew this or not, he still freely did it. I guess it is almost as if the murderer has already made the choice. If the murderer had chosen to do differently, then God would have foreknown differently. This is called molinism. [1]

Pro says that the same rules may not apply to the external universe, where there is nothing. But what qualities does nothingness have that means that the causality principle is abolished? Nothingness is just that - no matter, no energy - nothing. If something could and did come from nothing like that, it is extremely unlikely that it would produce something as huge as the universe. The likelihood is, it would only be a single atom that comes into being from nothing; or a couple of atoms. Not a whole universe. It is entirely up to you to prove that the same rules of causality do not exist outside of the universe. Because we are appealing to inductive reasoning. You are just guessing, and so you must provide proof.

Pro then says that because the 1st premise refers to things inside of the universe, we can't be sure that they are the same outside of the universe. However, I would say that we have independent reasons to suggest that the universe has to have a cause, that I have already explained - namely, something cannot come from nothing. I have already explained why this is correct in the previous paragraph, and how it does not committ any sort of fallacy.

Pro says that evolution rules out the need for God. However, i would argue to the contrary. Because in the time period that we have been on earth, evolution by the means of natural selection could never have occurred. I would say thay this perfectly illustrates the need for a God to guide the process. To give examples: the Origin of life, the Origin of Consciousness, the Origin of Sexual Reproduction, Biological Complexity just to name a few, are so improbable on a naturalistic worldview, that by the time it happened, the sun would cease to be a main sequence star and incinerate the earth. [2] Secondly, scientists have tried for more than 100 years to recreate life using only amino acids. But, to no aveil. It is just not possible. (by the way, 32 amino acids is ALOT to construct - and, there is a lot more to life than just amino acids. I hope this clarifies my point.
Even if Pro is reffering to the universe as a whole, i would barely call finely tuned gravitational constants that keep planets in orbit, the beauty of stars, and the meticulous arrangement of gases within the stars themselves that allow nuclear fusion to take place, keeping the star 'alive', a cabbage. Sure, it isn't perfect but for a being with infinate creativity, the universe is his canvas. For all we know, the beauty and order of the universe is exquisite. Pro then mentions evil and surfering on earth, but i responded to that earlier in the debate. Next, pro says that the Multiverse theory removes the need for fine-tuning. But, the Multiverse theory is entirely guesswork. There is no evidence for such a thing. Nevertheless, the 'mother verse'; the physical reality that contains the multiverse, would still have to come into being, requiring a further cause and further fine-tuning to occur.

Pro gives an alternative Ontological argument. However, premise 1 is inherently flawed - It is not possible for ANYTHING to stop a maximally great being from existing. A maximally great being is just that - maximally great. Nothing can stop it from existing. If you wrote a list of everything that makes something 'maximally great', 'preventing a machine that stops a Maximally Great Being from existing, from existing' would be a property.

Pro carries on with his teapot analogy, and says that collision of rocks in space or an alien race formed the teapot. Is that more plausibly true than not? I don't think so. I think that it is entirely unreasonable. I also think that you cannot compare the existence of a creator of the universe with such a thing. Faith is based on a personal experience of God. So, it is entirely reasonable to rely on faith to believe in God - much of it is based on personal religious experience.

Of course, I wasn't expecting a response for the resurrection, I just thought I would put it out there for viewing.

God Bless

[2] Barrow, J. and Tipler, F.J. (1986), The Cosmological Anthropic Principle
Debate Round No. 3


I thank my opposition for his reply, and will now give my concluding argument.

Regarding evil, my opposition stated that as a result of our lack of omniscience, it is impossible to deduce whether any natural disaster or worldly evil such as earthquakes, would cause a greater benefit in the future. I will address this in two ways, firstly that, I would cite J. S. Mill, in that 'Nearly all the things which men are hanged or imprisoned for doing to one another are nature's everyday performances'. He uses the example of a doe burning to death in a forest fire, asking what the possible greater purpose or benefit of this is. Not only this, but I would argue that a God holding the discussed three core principles should not have created a world where an earthquake that kills 100,000 people, or any evil, is necessary, and this shows imperfection, or cruel design by God. Either way the Christian God is flawed and thus logically unsound.

On the opposition's argument on free will, I believe it to be intrinsically flawed, as he states that the murderer "still freely chose to murder." However what affected this decision? It is clearly his environment and his own mind, both of which supposedly created by God, and thus his decision was determined by God before his birth, and humans cannot have free will.

As to the cosmological argument, I believe my opposition misunderstood my argument, by stating that "nothingness" contains no properties "that means that the causality principle is abolished." My point was not that nothingness brought this about, but simply that as far as we are aware, universal principles are just that - universal. I find it interesting that the opposition states "you are just guessing, and so you must provide proof," yet I must redirect him to the motion at hand. I need not provide logical surety that causality cannot occur external to the universe, as my very point is that we cannot deduce whether this is the case. If we cannot deduce such, having no experience of this, then simply assuming they apply is logical fallacy. Unless the opposition can specifically prove that these laws do apply external to the universe, which is impossible, then this assumption is not a logical defense of God, and relies, as such upon faith which I shall address later in my argument.

The irony of my opponents second point on the cosmological argument upon the first premise, is that he referred to his logical explanation of how "something cannot come from nothing," and yet my very point was that we could not be certain whether logical rules such as these applied external to the universe. This contradiction means that this rebuttal cannot apply.

On the teleological argument, once again the opposition states that in the time period "that we have been on earth, evolution by the means of natural selection could never have occurred," yet once more does not provide evidence to support this, whereas scientific theories have proven that evolution can have an observable effect in mere "hundreds of thousands of years," [1] compared to the billions of years old the planet is. The fact that scientists have tried "for more than 100 years to create life" is completely irrelevant considering the time scales we are discussing here, as life likely took millions of years to first form, chemicals mixing on a global scale.

I must note the oppositions statement that the universe "isn't perfect," yet the very nature of a Christian God requires the three core principles discussed, and thus perfection, so this reveals major contradiction in my opponents argument. His statement that "for all we know, the beauty and order of the universe is exquisite," yet once more this relies on faith, which I shall discuss later in my argument. Regarding the multi-verse, I must state that this is not "entirely guesswork," but based upon genuine empirical proof. [2] [3]

On the ontological argument, I would dispute the oppositions rebuttal to my first premise, as although once a maximally great being exists, it is undeniably impossible to remove, it is certainly feasibly possible to prevent anything from characterizing maximal greatness in the first place. Yet is also feasible that a maximally great being existed before these machines, and such a machine before this, and so on, leading this argument to be cyclical, and achieve no ground, thus being invalid. I must also point my opposition to my remaining argument on this subject regarding the lack of external logic.

Now, since all of the previous methods of reasonably proving God have been rendered invalid, this only leaves guesswork and faith. My point regarding the teapot analogy was not that on the balance of probabilities it was more likely, which it is clearly not, but simply that it is not a possibility you can entirely rule out, and in the same way people can hold faith in God and it cannot be entirely ruled out. My point was simply that presenting concepts in this way cannot act as logical proof. I do not argue against belief in God from personal experience, as this is not logically binding, and cannot be logically proved, and as such, regardless of its soundness is irrelevant within this debate.

Overall then, since the initial flaws inherent within the Christian God still stand, and faith has been shown to be illogical and irrelevant, I must then conclude that the existence of the Christian God is logically indefensible. Thus I urge you to vote with the proposition of this motion. I thank the opposition for his continued efforts and strong arguments, and for the readers of this debate.

- Invictus

Sources -


Hi Pro!

Pro cites Mill, with the example of a doe dying in a forest fire. However, I reiterate my point. Merely because we have a prima facie view that one piece of suffering is evil, by no stretch means that it is genuinely evil. If we can even give a possible scenario where the event will be for the greater good, then we can say that yes, God can allow a particulat piece of evil. To use the example; we can say that if the doe were not to die, it would feed a wolf that would in turn kill an African village's livestock, making them starving to death. So, I think that it is trivially easy to see what might be the greater purpose of such a piece of suffering.
Pro then says that God could not create a world full of disasters as it shows imperfections. Well, let's see how the Bible explains it. As you know, Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, resulting in the fall of man. As we separated from God, the absence of God means no God to sustain anything. Hence earthquakes, tsunamis etc. So, it is not God who is responsible - rather, it is man and his own choices. But why would God allow this to happen? It's because to create free creatures is wholly good. And free creatures make their own choices. Man chose to be separated from God. [1]
So, regarding evil, the Christian God is entirely defensible. I have explained how we do not have the knowledge to know whether evil truly exists or not, and the Fall of Man perfectly illustrates how a loving God could allow evil - showing no such signs of imperfection.

My opponent seems to be confused about this. He asks, 'what affected this decision?' Well, his own choice. But Pro continues: 'It is clearly his environment and his own mind'. Yes! God puts us into a set of circumstances, and let's us freely chose how we use them, and how we respond to them. That is the whole point of free-will!

Pro says that it is up to the person asserting that 'something cannot come from nothing' to prove that the same rules apply outside of the universe. However, I will reiterate - we have no reason to think that the laws of causality are abolished in nothingness - and so unless someone proves otherwise, we can be logical and say 'something cannot come from nothing'.

But Pro says that "Unless the opposition can specifically prove that these laws do apply external to the universe... then this assumption is not a logical defense of God". Well, we can do the best we can do in our circumstances and appeal to inductive reasoning - just like all of science. What this means is that the premise is by far more plausibly true than not - I don't think that anyone can stare in the face of science and say that something can come from nothing.
We can not just say 'the same laws may not be the same elsewhere' - That would mean that all science is inherently redundent. You may as well reject the universal laws of gravity, merely on the principle that we can't be sure that they apply outside of our measurable scope. So, considering we are using inductive reasoning, it is up to the person who claims otherwise to give evidence, not the other way round. The principle is a well established metaphysical truth - and a basic one at that.
Overall, we are using inductive reasoning to establish this argument. This is purely logical. So I think we can firmly say that the existence of the Christian God is entirely logically defendable in this regard.

Pro cites evolution again, saying that evolution can be obsevable in 100,000's of years. Well sure, tiny alterations. But you realise how complecated humans are, right? You know how many of those little changes there would have to be - to develop consciousness; genders; digestive, blood and nervous systems... There would have to be millions of these 'little changes' that could NEVER have occurred in the time we have been on earth.
Pro then says that the 100's of years scientists have been trying to create life cannot be compared to the natural time scales. But, scientists are intelligent beings. They are forcing (in vain) for life to occur. However in the naturalistic view, there is no such intelligence to force life to occur. So I think that they are entirely comparable.

Pro then says that imperfection in the universe means that God is not perfect. But I don't think that it is at all contrary to the Christian God. Imperfection in the universe is due to the fall of man, and the resulting separation from God, meaning no sustainer of the universe. Remember, once everything WAS perfect, then we fell into imperfection.
So Christianity perfectly illustrates imperfections. But regardless, I still believe that the universe is full of beauty. But the view is not essential to Christian belief.
Pro then talks about the possibility of the multiverse. But his sources just say that they are potentially measurable. And to quote from the source:
"The authors stress that these first results are not conclusive enough either to rule out the multiverse or to definitively detect the imprint of a bubble collision".
So I reiterate, the multiverse is entirely guesswork, and no evidence has been shown to prove such a thing exists.

I think that the main thing to remember hear is this; if it is possible that a necessary being exists, then necessarily, a necessary being exists. Nothing can stop it from being necessarily existing - not even the machine Pro talks about. It is a 'brute fact', so to say. So the argument doesn't go into a circle like Pro is suggesting - this is dealing with the ontology of God.

I think that I have established that in the face of the arguments, faith is an entirely logical means for belief in God.

Overall, I hope I have shown the Christian concept of God to be entirely logically defensable - showing all the arguments to be sound, and all of Pro's objections to be inept.

I would like to thank Invictus for a great debate.
God Bless
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Nzrsaa 3 years ago
Thanks, I enjoyed the debate! You were great too. I agree we should debate again sometime.
God Bless
Posted by Invictus144 3 years ago
Really well debated Nzrsaa - hope we can do it again some time :)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by janetsanders733 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Good job to both debaters. However, I think Con did better by showing for example that God could have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil and suffering in the world. Con also showed that Hume's argument is fallacious since it assumes that being can come from non being. I think Con gave really solid arguments for this debate, and provided the positive arguments like Modal, Teleological, and the resurrection of Jesus,etc. Aliens are not beings that are maximally great.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 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: It is most certainly a win for Pro, as all Cons arguments involved a god and not the Christian God. The only way Con tried to incorporate the Christian God was in the closing statement, but this relied on a presupposition which is what the debate refutes. With respect to sources, I am giving these as a tie, as William Lane Craigs arguments were cited and used by both debaters I just wish more citations were given for the works of Hume etc. Regarding conduct and grammar points are tied. Interesting debate.