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

there is 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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 8/21/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 607 times Debate No: 60763
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)




There is a god. I know there is a god because it necessary for there to be a god. God is the first cause and something cannot pop into existence from nothing. Something had to cause that universe and that something is God.


Thank you to Pro for instigating a debate on this subject.

// Framework //

My adversary is defending the positive statement that "God exists." Per convention, we would default to the Tri-Omni or Christian God, who is immaterial, atemporal, spaceless, uncaused, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. It is Pro's burden in this debate to prove that God exists, which means to have objective reality. My only burden is in refuting the points he brings forward.

// Rebuttals //

Pro asserts that God exists out of necessity. This is effectively a "God of the Gaps" argument, which is an appeal to ignorance. The suggestion is that our inability to prove a negative must necessitate the existence of God. This is far from the case. In fact, the universe could function perfectly well without a God.

"If you do the math, you find out that the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy, yielding a universe with zero (or close to zero) net matter/energy. So, in some sense, universes are for free. It does not take net matter and energy to create entire universes. In this way, in the bubble bath, bubbles can collide, create baby bubbles, or simple pop into existence from nothing." [1]

In light of the fact that the creation of the universe did not necessitate God, this argument by Pro becomes wildly invalid. In fact, a universe with a god would function in the same manner as a universe without one. My adversary is unnecessarily adding another figure into the fray, one for which there isn't any evidence. By simply appealing to Occam's Razor, his argument becomes invalid.

"Occam's Razor may be formulated as an epistemic principle: if theory T is simpler than theory T*, then it is rational (other things equal) to believe T rather than T*. Or it may be formulated as a methodological principle: if T is simpler than T* then it is rational to adopt T as one's working theory
for scientific purposes." [2]

In this case, my argument, borne out by science, is that the universe can emerge from nothing. My opponent's then becomes "the universe can emerge from nothing, but God did it anyway." He is adding an extra variable; he is advocating T* while I am advocating T, so it is rational for us, per Occam's Razor, to reject T* in favor of T. Note that my burden in this debate is not to disprove God, but rather to prevent my opponent from fulfilling his burden of proof. Having done that, he cannot win.

With my remaining characters, I am going to offer some positive contentions negating the resolution.

// Contentions //

[1] Problem of Evil

We start from the premise that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. This tells us that he knows all, can do all, and is all-good. Therefore, he knows of evil before it will occur, is capable of putting a stop to it, and has a desire to put a stop to it. However, not only does he not put a stop to it, but he created a universe such that gratuitous suffering exists. We can formalize this argument as follows:
P1) If gratuitous suffering and evil exist, the Tri-Omni God does not.
P2) Gratuitous suffering and evil exist.
C1) The Tri-Omni God does not.

P1 is true per the definitions of omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient.

P2 is relatively uncontroversial, and I doubt my adversary would contest it. As an example of brutal, gratuitous, disheartening suffering, we need only look at one example: 6 million babies are born and die every year without birth or death certificates [3]. Why would God allow this to happen?

C1 follows from the two premises.

We can take a slightly different formulation of this argument.

P1) God created the universe.
P2) Evil is contained in the universe.
P3) God created evil.
C1) Therefore, God is not omnibenevolent.
C2) If God is not omnibenevolent, then he is not Tri-Omni, meaning the resolution is negated.

P1 follows from the definition of God.

P2 is intuitive, and I highly doubt my opponent would contest the existence of evil in the world. We need only look at the vicious, gratuitous violence in the Middle East to see for ourselves the evil contained in this world. We could even look at homicide rates in the United States to see that there is in fact evil in this world.

P3 follows from P1 and P2

C1 follows from the definition of omnibenevolence. Moreover, for God to be omnipotent, he has to possess the capacity to create evil. If he's omnibenevolent, this wouldn't be possible.

C2 follows from the definition of Tri-Omni God.

[2] Omnipotence Paradox

God is, per our definition, omnipotent meaning he should be able to do anything. I've already proven that omnipotence cannot possibly exist alongside omnibenevolence for two main reasons: evil exists which God should be able to stop but doesn't, and omnipotence would require that God be able to create evil, though omnibenevolence would prevent it. I'm going to take a different spin on this, though, and prove that omnipotence unto itself is impossible.

P1) If God is omnipotent, he can do anything.
P2) God cannot create a rock so heavy that he couldn't lift it.
C1) Therefore, God is not omnipotent.

P1 follows from the definition of omnipotence.

P2 follows from the definition of omnipotence; if God can do anything, he can create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it. However, if he cannot lift it, he also isn't omnipotent. If he cannot create the rock or lift it, it follows that he isn't omnipotent.

C1 follows from the premises.

[3] Free Will

Free will is a core conviction of virtually any religion, and I doubt theists would be inclined to deny free will. They believe, for instance, that in order to sin you must knowingly do wrong; in order to knowingly choose to do wrong, you must have the free will to do otherwise. However, I will take a slightly different spin on this argument is make the case that free will can exist irrespective of whether anyone believes in it.

P1) If God is omnipotent, he can have free will.
P2) If God is omniscient, he cannot have free will.
C1) Therefore, God cannot be concurrently omnipotent and omniscient.

P1 follows from the definition of omnipotence.

P2 follows from the definition of omniscience; if God is omniscient, he has perfect knowledge of the past, present and future. If he has perfect knowledge of the future, he knows with perfect accuracy what our future actions will be. If that is the case, we cannot possibly be said to be in control of them because we lack the ability to do otherwise. As a result, we cannot have free will.

C1 follows from the conclusion; omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive.

// Conclusion //

I have refuted all of my opponent's arguments and provided positive contentions as to why the existence of the Tri-Omni God is logically incoherent and should thus be discarded.

Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro decided not to contest any of cons points. ... Single round debates, should be in the opinion section, however this one was so weak I doubt it would even hit the word minimum for that.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has made blind assertions, not arguments and no support from sources. Pro's argument is fallacious. Con presents arguments and sources to support them that are less fallacious.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: pro did nothing