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

There Are No Reasonable Arguments for a God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 838 times Debate No: 41572
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)




My other attempt at this challenge resulted in a forfeit in Round 2. Such is the power of reason. Let's try this again.

The aim of my opponent in this debate should be to attempt to prove me wrong by showing a reasonable argument in favor of the existence of a god, and I will reply accordingly. I am eager to find a good argument, and I have tried to formulate my own, so I am reasonably open-minded about this issue.

A god would be roughly defined as the creator of the universe. He does not need to be necessarily omnipotent, perfect, or benevolent, but my opponent can argue for that or similar concepts that resemble my definition.

I have extensively thought about all the arguments that have been proposed to prove the existence of a god, at least the ones I was able to find. So far, I have found all of them utterly unconvincing and logically fallacious. The ontological argument is circular, the cosmological argument is special pleading for god, and the fine-tuning argument is also special pleading for god. Those were the three chief contenders for a proof of god. Other arguments, ranging from religious experience to alleged miracles, are so naive that I don't even pay attention to them anymore.

Can anyone solidly argue in favor of any of these arguments? I will provide my detailed objections to them further on. My opponent's Round 1 post should be a presentation and an argument for god.


Despite your intimidating profile picture and track record I shall put my argument as best and will make my position concise and succinct.
First, I must stipulate that my theological beliefs are completely restricted to the three dimensional human concept and condition, but that is the only thing I can go on and I would like you to restrict yourself to that understanding as well. At least before you put the bullet in my head.
If you were to take the whole of existence as a whole or, for argument's sake, the universe, and I told you it was self aware, or at least, intelligent, then, based off your own human experience, you would have to concede my point. The universe is intelligent. We make it so. You and me and the spider in the corner of the room. Could that not be God?
Debate Round No. 1


It seems to me that you are committing something called the fallacy of composition. It's not just because each individual sheep in a flock has a mother, that the flock itself has a mother. In the same way, it does not follow that the universe itself is intelligent or self-aware, just because some of its constituent parts are so. Sorry, but I cannot accept such absurd premise based on a fallacy. Did I misinterpret you?

I also want to ask for a clarification: what do you mean by "three dimensional human concepts and conditions"?


By three dimensional, I mean that we are only limited by our personal knowledge of the third dimension; that we are only aware of the physical three dimensional world around us and, perhaps, the fourth dimension, as we travel in a linear fashion through time. I believe theoretical physicists have posed the theory that there are eleven dimensions in total, although I cannot say for sure. As such, human beings are very limited in their observation of the universe. This may change with scientific endeavour in the future, but for the present, we have to rely on what's observable with the knowledge we have now.

What we know so far is that we are part of existence and I accept that you interpret my observation as a composition of fallacy. If we were to consider the brain as the source of the mind, we could not then say that the rest of the body was self aware. The arm cannot think. We can, however, state that the brain is the source of intelligence in the body. I do not wish to use an analogy as it has its flaws (THIS IPHONE HAS A CREATOR. THEREFORE, WE ALL HAVE A CREATOR), but although we are a component of the universe, we are not a separate isolated component. If that were the case then we could actually consider that a deity put us there. Much to the contrary, existence was started in a big bang (or something to that effect), rendering every aspect of existence as one being, in this case, existence. To then argue that existence is made of separate unrelated components would merely to expand on the definition of existence.

This brings me to my point of a deity or a God. Any rational scientific analysis would suggest that all religions are simply wrong. A man cannot rise from the dead. A man cannot ride a winged horse into heaven. How then, can we accept their professed God is a separate entity from the universe and created it by the construct of love? No doubt this is highly implausible. Thus, the definition of God has to be considered more abstractly than previously thought for these reasons. From an atheistic point of view, previous definitions of God are simply without justification and, thus, wrong. The creation professed by these books is wrong with the theory of evolution, so why cannot their definition of God be wrong? Does he have to be intelligent? Does he have to be able to bend reality? Does he have to be regarded as a he, she, it, many, or none existent? The answer is no.

The definition of God is subject to change and this has been the case for many thousand of years. Polytheism and monotheism have all been used in defining what God is (abstractly speaking), but have always been flawed in their concept, as they are human constructs and provide no evidence on either a heaven or that respective God. However, these definitions have always been in regards to what humankind's place is in the universe is. Using the Christian God as an example, our creation was formulated by an all-loving father figure. Thus, our existence in the universe is in relation to him.

If we were to establish that there is no celestial being that created us, as atheism establishes, then, that the definition of God is none existent. It is simply a human construct. A fable. However, this does not mean that God is not. In order to give a more accurate definition, we therefore have to reconsider what humankind's place is in the universe. Are we an amalgamation of chemicals, astronomy and chance? Whether this is the case or not, the fact remains that we are the only self aware beings (for argument's sake) in the universe. If we were not there, as may well be the case, then there will be no intelligence in the universe to speak of. Does this mean God will die? Our interpretations and constructs of God surely will. Existence, however, will continue, in a metaphorically brain dead state.

Linking this back to a reasonable argument for God, humans have to find a reasonable rational definition of what God is in regards to them. Science has shown that previous definitions of God are false and unfeesable, but science has only dealt with God in his religious definition and not on its own terms. Science has stated that we all came from a primordial soup, but it hasn't dealt with why the laws of science has allowed this. "So there must be a God." This is a false speculation with consideration to a celestial deity. All we need to know and for the moment we form and integral component of thought in the universe, intrinsic to the rest of existence for the mere fact that it is part of existence and the laws of science which defines it. Is evolution not more beautiful, subjectively, then an all powerful being demanding the presence of light? Regardless, if the universe had a brain and thought, it would be in living matter. My personal definition of God is existence and the creation that has been made in it and that our being here shows that we are a part of that God, despite our respective theological constructs of what he is.

I apologise for the questionable structure of my argument.
Debate Round No. 2


I do not think we are in any disagreement, for I agree with pretty much everything that you have (intelligently) stated... except for one key concept: the definition of god. I am looking for a clue of the existence of some powerful, intelligent being that created the universe, that so many people believe in (yet none can provide a good argument for), as I stated in Round 1. One that has at least the basic properties of a deistic god. However, that is not the definition that you use when you talk about god, since you define god as "existence itself", which is self-evident, who did not externally create the universe. Am I interpreting you correctly?


Yes, but returning back to my point of our three dimensional view of the world and linear perception of the fourth dimension, with at least 11 dimensions in total, we could argue that the universe did not begin at one point, unless we're considering it from our own personal three dimensional observation. What we can see is that existence itself transcends time. There is no fixed point of beginning, but all conceivable points. Everything, not just matter, exists in tandem with one another. Referring back to the human race and, if we accept that we are the intelligence of the universe, we have to assume where we will be in a thousand or billion years. Will there be a fixed point where our knowledge will stop? Will we finally know everything? If we do then we will assume, based on my argument, that we will be all knowing and, as such, God will be all knowing, as he is existence. You could argue that, based on this fixed point in time, we are not and, therefore, God is not, but that would be assuming it from our limited perception of existence.

My definition of God is already all omnipotent, as seen with the laws of science. They came from nothing and we cannot break them. My definition of God is omnipresent. Existence transcends matter and time. The final question is if he is omniscient. If we accept that humankind can guarantee its own survival as a species and advance to a stage where we do know everything about our universe and, perhaps beyond, then existence is already all knowing, just not in regards to our own perception of it. You could argue that this is the fatal flaw on my position, as it suggests that one would have to have faith that our species will reach that point. However, I would argue that it is the responsibility of intelligent life, as it always has been, to define what God is. If we assume the basis of my argument, then existence is also objectively perfect and, as such, so are we. We cannot be changed outside the laws of science and despite chance, we are here and we are meant to be, because we are. If our world ends, then it was meant to be and the religions of the world will find their justifications with the end of days. If we can establish a guaranteed future, then we will also have the chance to show God is all knowing when we are. I suppose, at the end of the day, you will need to have a faith in science.

However, I am still arguing my point on your terms of what God is. I do not wish to push the 'definition argument', but we assume intelligence from a derivative of our own intelligence. Intelligence is different from fly to lion, lion to human. The "intelligence" of God, or existence, would not be restricted by belief, choice, free will, ideology and any other construct imaginable. It would not be able to imagine, because it would be the truth. No doubt I am sounding like an Enlightenment philosophe at this stage, but the fact remains that we are here and although I may be pushing the point of a deistic God, it is only a deistic God (I assume that is uncaring) if we allow it be the case. The fact of the matter is, is that we are an aspect of that God and, therefore, we have a say in deciding what that God is, as we have done so for thousands of years.
Debate Round No. 3


I admit to being utterly incapable of understanding what your argument is, or how it answers to my challenge. Maybe it's because I'm ignorant, or because your text is inherently unintelligible/meaningless, but I cannot give a solid answer without understanding your point. An Enlightenment philosopher would be radically clearer, so you seem more like a Continental philosopher.

One thing I could (maybe) understand is that you claim that we might become omniscient at one point in the future, which then means existence itself (= god) will be omniscient, which makes absolutely no sense to me.


I apologise, my writing can be chaotic sometimes, but it is a difficult theory to convey. I'm only an amateur philosopher in truth.

However, to give a succinct as possible answer, I would state that my theory is based on God being existence. Existence is said to come from nothing, as far as we can rationalise. You cannot change the laws of science and you cannot transcend time itself, which is an aspect of existence. We are not all knowing, so God, at this fixed point time is not all knowing. Therefore, God is an ideal which is only contained in, what is essentially, fairy tales and books. However, as much as culture is affected by religion, so too is religion affected by culture. Should the human race scientifically advance to a state when science has explained existence, which is a definite possibility, then the human race shall be all-knowing and know truth, putting them on an omniscient level. That eventual future of our concept of time is still be encapsulated by existence, whereby time is transcended, linking us to the future. Thus, it would mean that existence is already all-knowing. In relation to humankind, that would make it God, although we do not perceive it in the present. Therefore, although this argument requires faith in the human race, which is a separate debate altogether, it does argue a reasonable argument for a God.
Debate Round No. 4


Your argument is a huge ontological mess, that makes little to no sense and makes huge illogical leaps. You are not defending the version of god I proposed - which renders your argumentation pointless - but I will lay out my objections regardless.

(a) You define god as existence itself, which is meaningless. You have not demonstrated that existence itself is conscious at all!
(b) How do you make the leap from us being omniscient (something that I see as utterly impossible) to existence itself (and thus god) being so? Again, this makes me thing your arguments are meaningless verbiage.
(c) How does it make any sense to say "time is transcended by existence" (remember that you said in the beginning that "you cannot transcend time itself"), and thus conclude that existence is already omniscient because in the future WE will (in your head) be omniscient? What!?


a) Defining God as existence itself is not meaningless, as it, in itself, has meaning. Consciousness is an aspect of existence, as we are conscious and are of existence. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.
b) Something that you may see as utterly impossible in the future, does not make it so and you have no grounds to argue its impossibility. If I were to tell a 14th Century peasant that one day we would have mobile phones, not only would he not believe me, he would be unable to grasp the concept of it being a reality. Thus, they, understandably, lack foresight. Likewise, if an all knowing person told you that one day the consciousness of the universe would understand the universe itself, you would say would be utterly impossible. Thus, I could argue that your point against me lacks foresight and is thus flawed.
c) I concede that i phrased it badly. I meant to say that time transcends our concept of reality. I apologise. However, the fact remains that if humanity were to achieve omniscience in the future then existence is already omniscient in the present and if you were able to grasp the meaning of point a) you would realise that existence contains all the criteria of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being. As I said, it is a question in having faith that humankind will be able to achieve this, which is what all faith comes down to. However, my faith you cannot argue as being fallacious, as that argument, in itself, is a 'subjective fallacy', in that you base your opinion on your personal point of view.

Therefore, I believe that my argument is a reasonable argument and that my opponent, much to my fault, has been unable to grasp my concepts, as he is given to a construct of what God is, as opposed to what that construct could be in context to.

Finally, I would apologise that my argument has been badly worded throughout. I must remind voters that I have been arguing an extremely difficult case and they should take that into consideration.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Multi-Wargasm 2 years ago
no more weirder than any other religious argument for God, but probably not as eloquent. As for the fallacy of composition, I do not think that separating existence into components, so as to justify the alleged fallacy, is possible. We can only describe existence based on material observation in a human context.
Posted by TheLastMan 2 years ago
Oh! For the love of the God.... I understood nothing.
Posted by DanielCoimbra 2 years ago
For it to make any sense, you have to demonstrate it. Your fallacy of composition prevents you from doing so. I'm dumbfounded at how weird your "argument" is.
Posted by Multi-Wargasm 2 years ago
but it is a part of existence non the less. Why does it make no sense to say that existence is conscious?
Posted by DanielCoimbra 2 years ago
I would like add that consciousness is not an essential part of existence, for a rock is also existent but non-conscious. It also makes no sense to say "existence itself, as a whole, is conscious".
Posted by Multi-Wargasm 2 years ago
@ Teya2:

Still, if your trying to give a logical atheist faith, you have to do so on their terms.
Posted by Multi-Wargasm 2 years ago
@ Connnr:

I believe that feeling there is a God is solid basis for his existence. I also, however, feel that, as you said, there are different routes to finding him, whether it be upbringing, fear, love or even logic. In the end, if I believe in a logical explanation for God that you believe is wrong in its ideal and you follow a religious doctrine that I believe is outdated and fantastical, we're still both believing in God and that's the main thing. I do have fears, however, that people put more faith in their religion and not in God, thinking that that is the only way to attain a relationship with him. We all believe in God and I think religions have to acknowledge this and not judge the members of another religion as being destined to the eternal furnace.
Posted by Teya 2 years ago
This a subject that many people argue over and it is as simple as this: God can not be seen, but his works are. Example it is hard to prove that right now you are breathing in air. If your argument is the way the leaves are blowing outside that is false because that is called wind. If you wave your hand in the air right now that is false because only thing that you see is a hand moving. But the concept of air is there even though we don't see it. With out a 'scientific analysis' ,it is hard to explain. This argument has been around for many years because no one person wants to except the fact that its just what it is. Just like children believe in the magical being Santa Claus when they are young or the Tooth Fairy; it is faith.( belief in things not based on proof) . Simple concept that is hard for the human mind to wrap around,

Sorry for any grammar or punctuation errors.
Posted by Connnr 2 years ago
The issue with arguing for the existence of God, is that it is a point of faith, it is not an argument, indeed when you ask someone why they believe in God they do not answer "The arguments presented to me were both convincing and backed by fact." Usually the answer is something along the lines of "Because I feel his presence" or because of an event that made them feel close to God. The key word here is "feel" belief in God is about emotion, usually that emotion is love, but it can also be bought about by loneliness or sorrow or even fear, in these cases God is means of comfort. This is not to say that God is simply an idea that people find comforting when everything else fails, but there is something about God that is feels natural to people. What is truly impressive about a faith in God is that it allows people to come together under common belief in a concept so far beyond their understanding. I find that by wrapping God in logical arguments is the wrong approach to take and is harmful to the concept of God itself, it takes people away from what faith in God can give a person and causes them to instead focus on trying to win people over by making them feel that they are wrong rather then that if they believe in God they are opening themselves up to a concept that will allow them to connect to other people emotionally. Because of this I agree with the claim that there is no reasonable argument for a God because such an argument as it is against the ideal that God is a matter of faith not fact.
Posted by Multi-Wargasm 2 years ago
I suppose it does make a point about deism, but it makes a point about a score of other beliefs. I'm of the belief, based on this view point, that we are the intelligence of the universe and that because of that, we decide what God is and we have done so since the stone age. Religion has changed throughout our society and has been redefined by the culture it permeates. With this in consideration, I would not go so far as to say that we are the Gods, but we are observably (for we cannot see a separate entity to the universe so rationally we could assume it is God) the intelligence of God. Now assuming that we are alone in the universe (because I have never seen an alien) and what with the state the world is in now we must assume that this intelligence is not required for God to exist. The universe will continue as it was. The beauty of this is that if we do save the planet from ourselves and guarantee its survival, then our intelligence will mean something and then all our history will mean something. Even religion in all its forms.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imsmarterthanyou98 2 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's points if i could call them that where intangible and didn't make sense and Pro successfully rebutted his "claims"therefore points to pro except sources.