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

A Monotheistic God Probably Does Not Exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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: 9/28/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,736 times Debate No: 38212
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)




First round is for response to my arguments. If you forfeit any round you lose the debate. No new arguments may be introduced in the last round. (Voters please comply)

PLEASE NOTICE: My opponent must believe in a monotheistic God (defined in the terms below), do not accept this debate if you do not!


1. If God exists, then He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

2. If God is omnipotent, then He can do anything that is possible.

3. If God is omniscient, then He knows everything that is true.

4. If God is omnibenevolent , he knew that an evil and unnecessary suffering was about to occur and that he could have prevented it, then He would have prevented it.

5. If God had prevented all evil and unnecessary suffering, then there wouldn't be any.

6. There are evils and unnecessary sufferings that could have been prevented.

7. God probably does not exist.


God : the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe. [a]
Omnipotent: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. [b]
Omniscient: One having total knowledge. [c]
Omnibenevolent: All-loving, or infinitely good. [d]
Evil: Morally bad or wrong. [e]
Unnecessary: Anything that is extra or not needed. [f]
Suffering: To experience pain, illness, or injury. [g]

A: Evil and Unnecessary Suffering
The argument shows the logical inconsistencies between God, evil and unnecessary suffering. One of the ways to get around the argument is to relax one of the attributes of God, but this leads to a God who is not worthy of worship and denies the God of monotheism.. Another way to get around the argument is to deny that evil and unnecessary suffering exist, but this will be hard to do since it is an empirical fact that evil and unnecessary suffering exist.

One example of evil and unnecessary suffering is the Fritzle case:

Few will forget the morbid details of Elisabeth Fritzl"s tortured life. The 42-year-old Austrian woman was discovered in 2008 after being held captive by her father for 24 years in a dark, subterranean dungeon in Amstetten, Austria. He was sentenced to life in prison after confessing that he raped his daughter more than 3,000 times, fathering seven live children and one stillborn. She delivered all her babies alone, cutting the umbilical cords with a pair of rusty scissors. "I always knew, during those 24 years, that what I was doing was wrong. I must have been mad to do something like that," he told the court during his trial. Fritzl"s wife claimed she had no idea what was going on downstairs, even though she raised five of her daughter"s children in the house above the dungeon. [h]

Where was God is this horrific event of evil and unnecessary suffering. This of course is only one story among so many that I couldn't possible count. Why didn't God prevent this from happening? The Con will need to explain why God would allowed this to happen.

The second example is

The earthquake that generated the great Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004 is estimated to have released the energy of 23,000 Hiroshima-type atomic bombs, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Giant forces that had been building up deep in the Earth for hundreds of years were released suddenly on December 26, shaking the ground violently and unleashing a series of killer waves that sped across the Indian Ocean at the speed of a jet airliner. By the end of the day more than 150,000 people were dead or missing and millions more were homeless in 11 countries, making it perhaps the most destructive tsunami in history.

What was the purpose behind this unnecessary suffering of millions of people? Did it have a purpose in the grand scheme of God and humanity?

B: Heaven without Evil and Unnecessary Suffering
God could have made earth without evil and unnecessary suffering. My example of this potential is heaven. If God could make a heaven without these negative proponents, then he could have made earth the same way, or bypassed earth all together.

C: Paradoxical Problems
The best possible answer to the problem of evil is that God as defined above probably does not exist, and cannot possibly exist logically. The first problem is with the omnipotence paradox:
"...if a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do."

If God is all knowing, then he knows the past, present and future. If he knows the future, then he has had fore-knowledge of every disaster, tragedy, murder, rape, death, war, etc. that has ever occurred. Therefore, he always chose not to intervene and prevent these terrible things from happening. This paradox encompasses both omniscience and omnibenevolence.

D: What this argument does not prove:
This argument does not prove that all other possible gods do not exist, just the probability of the God defined by monotheistic religions as stated above in terms defined.

I look forward to a stimulating debate!

[b] [c] [e];


Pro, it seems as though based on the title of this debate you are assuming the burden of proof to show that the monothestic God does not in fact exist. I understand that in general, the BOP is on the theist to show that God does exist however it seems as though your contention is stronger and in fact a positive argument against God hence you are assuming a BOP. Anyway, because you have attempted to show God does not exist, I will first address these and focus on your arguments for this debate. I will only briefly offer my own arguments in favor of God's existence at the end. You can take it from there in the 2nd round.

I. Argument from Evil
1) Concede
2) Concede
3) Concede
4) Deny
5) Concede
6) I don't like the word "unnecessary" in there. I think that this begs the question
7) Deny
I am denying premise 4. First of all, you phrase it poorly. So I will rephrase what I think you mean to say is "If God is monibenevolent and if he also knew that evil+unecessary suffering was about to occur he would have prevented it if he could have" or something like that. Anyway, I have two problems. The first is just semantics. By calling suffering unecessary, you seem to imply that it has no purpose and you give it a strong connotation that God shouldve gotten rid of it. This begs the question and therefore should go. Anyway, your point stands, the gist of this premise is that if God is all good, he would want to get rid of all evil.
The problem is that you give no support in favor of this premise. You simply state it is true. Now, you may think that it is obvious however I deny this.
It is entirely reasonable to suppose that an all-good God allows evil for the sake of some greater good. Notice I said allows not causes. It is important to realize that all I am saying we may suppose is that God lets evil exist in order that He may bring some other and possibly greater good out of it. In other words, the ultimate greater good happens when God allows the evil. This is an entirely reasonable thing to believe. Because of that, in order for your argument to actually disprove God exists as described, you have to show how this assumption of mine (God allows evil for greater good) is in fact false necessarily and the opposite is true. You have to show that a good God simply cannot allow evil and a moral God has no good reason to allow evil ever in any situation. If you can do this, your argument succeeds.

As for your examples, they are very emotionally powerful however logically you do not prove anything. You do not know what good and if there is some greater good God can bring about by allowing such evils to exist either in particular or the possibility of such evil in general. They are certainly very emotionally powerful instances but do not show that God cannot exist.

As for your comment about heaven, it is true that God could make a world without suffering. Maybe some other world doesn't have suffering. This doesn't prove anything. All I am claiming is that a good God is not bound to create a world without suffering because a good God might allow suffering for some greater purpose

Now, your paradox problems. These are old little conundrums but do not have much force among those who actually understand philosophy of religion. If it was this simple, God wouldve been disproven long ago. These are really just evidence of lack of understanding more than anything else.

First:"...if a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do." The problem with this argument is that it has a false view of omnipotence. Omnipotence traditionally means that God can do anything logically possible. Not that the laws of logic bind Him so much as anything illogical is not really a thing at all but a string of meaningless words. You might as well say "can God create a dkaslfj;dsakl ?" Because a fjladkfj;dlsf or whatever is the same as any logical contradiciton, in other words, it is meaningless. Now, the quote says "it should be able to create a task which it cannot perform" however this is a contradiction in terms--- it is a "task which the being that can do all tasks cannot perform" its an absurdity. A self-contradiction like a married bachelor. So such a thing cannot exist because it is only a string of words, not a meaningful concept.
Philosophers like Thomas Aquinas have thoroughly refuted this objection.

Now on to my argument for God's existence.
It is based on a few premises.
1. If a substance is both (a) contingent and (b) exists, it requires an external cause
2. The sum of all contingent substances that exist is contingent and it exists (a and b)
3. Therefore, the sum of all contingent substances requires an external cause

Defense of this argument:
A substance is really anything that can be defined
A contingent substance is one that in itself has possible existence because it might or might not exist. It does not have to but could. Most things we see are contingent. To be contingent simply means the nature of the thing and its existence are two separate principles.
An external cause is something that makes the possible existence of the substance a reality.

Defense of the premises:
1. We must accept this premise. First of all, if we deny it, we deny that there is any real explanation for the existence of things. If we ask why does this contingent thing exist, we cannot appeal to the thing itself. The reason is that this would make it its own cause, in other words, it is more fundamental than itself, whcih is absurd. Also, it would mean that something that possibly exists caused its real existence but a possibility cannot do anything so thats also absurd. Since the contingent thing cannot explain itself, its explanation must be in something else. If we deny it is in something else we have to conclude that there is no explanation. There are two main problems with this. (1) This is an affront to reaosn which tells us that things have explanations. If we deny this, we are saying that there is in principlle no reason WHY this contingent substance exists. (2) It is metaphysically unsound becasue we should realize that possible things only recieve existence from real things. This is a metaphysical principle.
BIG DISCLAIMER: WE CANNOT GET INTO ALL OF THE METAPHYSICS HERE it is impossible to have a real good thought out argument for God's existence on this kind of forum. However this is a brief sketch.

2. This premise holds because contingent things are things which might not or might exist. If two things exist but do not have to exist, the sum of them together does not have to exist. For something to HAVE TO EXIST, it means that its nature includes existence. However, if two things have natures that do not include existence, it follows that the sum of them together does not have a nature that includes existence because the nature of the sum of the two things is simply that of the two things. Since this holds true with two contingent things, it holds true no matter how many there are. In other words, the sum of all contingent things is itself contingent.
This sum does in fact exist because there is at least one contingent thing in the world (this computer is contingent because in itself it does not have to contingent thing is sufficient to fulfill requirement a and thus prove the argument)

Conclusion: the sum of contingent things has a cause. THis cause cannot be contingent because otherwise it would be included in the sum of contingent things. It must be outside of this sum and therefore not contingent. Because it is not contingent, it must be what we call necessary. A contingent thing might or might not exist. A necessary thing must exist by its own nature. Therefore, there exists at least one being such that its nature is to exist. We may proceed from here to understand what this being is. (AGAIN, THESE ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN ARTICULATED IN 10000s of pages of philosophy...this is just a brief sketch)

The necessary being must be (and again BRIEF reasons) pure reality and not anything else. If it were anything else, this extra part would be contingent and thus not truly the fundamental reality. Only something necessary and that is existence itself or pure reality does not need a cause and thus can be truly fundamental.

1. Infinite---Something is limited by its nature. But if the nature of something is subsistant being (pure reality, i.e. a necessary being) it follows that it is not limited

2. Immaterial- Material things do not necessarily exist. It is possible to logically concieve of a world without matter, energy, or physical laws. Further, if the necessary thing were material, its nature would be more than its existence which as we have said is false.

3. Unique- There is no way in principle to distinguish between two necessary beings. One would have to lack something the other had. To say a necessary being lacks something is to say that it is limited in some respect which we said is false.

4. All Powerful- Obviously as the cause of contingent things it is powerful. However since it is infinite, it must be all powerful.

5. All Good- Something is good insofar as it is in being. The necessary being is pure reality and thus pure goodness.

6. Intelligent- Something is intelligent if it can contain in itself the ideas of other things. Material things can only contain one idea in themselves. HOwever, to be removed from matter is to be able to contain multiple ideas (or forms as it is called in ancient philosophy) in itslef. Thus since the necessary being is immaterial it must have the capacity to contain in itslef many ideas or forms. However since it is unlimited, it must be able to contain all forms or be all knowing.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank my opponent for accepting the debate and making a reasonable response to my arguments. The first thing I would like to point out to Con is that the title states that the a monotheistic God PROBABLY does not exist, not as you said 'does not in fact exist'. Either way this does not alleviate your position and burden of proof, it is still your job to show that a MONOTHEISTIC God probably does exist.

4. If God is omnibenevolent , he knew that an evil and unnecessary suffering was about to occur and that he could have prevented it, then He would have prevented it.

The Con denies point four and seven of my first argument. The Con implies in his response to point four that all suffering that an all powerful, all knowing, and all good God is NECESSARY. He implies that all suffering must have a purpose, so what is the purpose? He accuses me of giving no support in favor of the premise, yet I give two examples of what I deemed as support showing evil and unnecessary suffering. Then he claims that it is REASONABLE for God to allow evil and suffering to exist for a greater good and declares that I have to show how his assumption is false, taking no responsibility for his statement. Even if suffering causes some greater good, why have some people, e.g. the Jews in the Holocaust, had to suffer so much, while others, like me, haven't?

I will use my second story as an example of unnecessary suffering. In doing so I will show that God not only allows unnecessary suffering but caused it. If God is the creator of the universe ,which includes the earth we live on, then he is controlling all that happens naturally. The earthquake that generated the great Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004 could of only been cause by God. This act of God created much suffering, to claim that is was necessary, which is the only stance my opponent has, is to assume that it had a greater good. This means that every human being who suffered directly and indirectly suffered justly. Could God not bring forth this supposed greater good by other means than gratuitous suffering? I implore the Con to show what greater good this God's caused suffering had.

If God is all powerful and all knowing, how could God not have created evil? This debate is about the monotheistic God, the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim God. All three of these religions have their book in which they follow. When it comes to evil each holy book reveals something about God and evil. The Jewish and Christian bible says: ' I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things' (Isaiah 45:7, KJV). The Qur'an states: ' From the evil of that which He created...' (Qu'ran 113:2). All three of these religions claim that God creates evil.

My opponent brushes off the said paradox problems by saying that such a thing cannot exist because it is only a string of words, not a meaningful concept and that philosophers like Thomas Aquinas have thoroughly refuted this objection. To merely say that it is semantic does not refute the paradox. The Con implies that omnipotence is not necessarily bound by logic. The paradox represents a reductio ad absurdum, with the conclusion that a truly omnipotent being cannot possibly exist. Can an omnipotent God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? If he can then God has a weakness and his power is limited, or becomes limited. If he cannot then God's power is already limited, since there is an action he cannot perform. Either way, God has proved not to be omnipotent due to the logical contradiction present in both possible answers.

I will now deal with the arguments made by my opponent.

Before dealing with the task of my opponents argument, I would like to point out that he has only argued at best for a deistic god, not the God that has been stated in the terms agreed upon above. Perhaps my opponent is planning to do this in his future posts. I would encourage him do to do so promptly as to give us ample time to dispute back and forth on his proof of the agreed God.

1. If a substance is both (a) contingent and (b) exists, it requires an external cause
2. The sum of all contingent substances that exist is contingent and it exists (a and b)
3. Therefore, the sum of all contingent substances requires an external cause

The argument merely postulates a god being the external cause of the universe. I will make this simple, who caused god? There is an infinite regress to this problem unless you say that god is necessary and not contingent, this is merely an unproven assumption. No one knows for sure how the universe began to exist, but science is doing there best to work through the possibilities. To paraphrase Stephen Hawking: Science has shown that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. That it is not necessary to appeal to a God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. We are debating possibilities at best, it is more rational to accept the less complicated concept with the most evidence available. There is no empirical evidence for God or that he caused the universe to begin. At best science has given us better possibilities for our existence and requires no God at this point.

Even IF your argument had proven that God exists, you still have the burden of proving that the God of monotheistic religion probably exists over the probability that he does not, and at this point you have not.


Unfortunately I think pro misunderstands my points. I will try to be brief and clear up some of the misconceptions.

First, to the probelm of evil. I did not say that evil is necessary. I only said that God can bring good out of evil and thus might have moral grounds to allow it to exist. In other words:
IF there is some good G such that G can be brought out of some evil E then it follows that a good God might allow E for the sake of G.
I think the above statement is true. You think that it is false necessarily. Explain why. Also, it is important to note that YOU have to explain why that statement must be false. By making a positive argument (the claim that an all good God would necessarily want to stop all evil) then you assume the BOP. I am simply offering a logical alternative, I do not have to prove that this alternative is true, only that it is at least somewhat plausible.

Not all suffering need be caused by God. Simply because God is ultimately the explanation of all things, this does not mean that all evil is directly willed by Him. God can "set things up" so to speak and allow them to play out. Free will is built into the equation and through some indirect way it is possible that free will causes a distance between man and God and thus indirectly causes bad things in general to happen and thus God allows evil as a response to man's free choice. This does not entail that every suffering is a direct punishment for sin, ABSOLUTELY NOT, only that in a world with sin, it is possible that this has led indirectly to suffering which God allows rather than causes. Sin is the ultimate cause. This is a plausible scenario and thus you cannot say that God necessarily causes evil.

As for "how could God not ahve created evil?" you make an assumption that is dubious. According to many classical theists, evil is not a thing, it is not created. Evil is the lack of some desired good or in some sense a privation. Much more could be said and argued about the nature of evil but the point is that the theist need not admit that evil is created at all. With regards to the scriptures you provide, its all in the interpretation. For instance, the Catholic Church rejects as heretical the idea that God is the cause of evil as such.
I do not just dismiss the paradoxes. I give a reason why they are absurdities. I do not just state they are strings of words, I say WHY they are. THe reason I gave is that a logical contradiction is not a meaningful concept. So can God create a married bachelor? No because married bachelor is no such thing. Can God create a limit to His power (whether that be in the form of a rock or a task or whatever...)? No because a limit to limitless power is a self contradiction. Self contradictions are not coherent concepts and therefore are just strings of words that negate each other. Therefore, there is no difference between saying can God create a rock he cannot lift and can God fdkasljfdskljfds. In either case, the concept is meaningless and the objection fails.

Now in defense of my argument. First, I do not claim that it proves Christianity, Islam, or Judaism...only the NOTION of GOD that each of these religions BASICALLy adheres too. MOre specifically, the God of classical theism. An argument for the existence of God is a different argument for the truth of a specific religion. The God I am arguing for does have the traits of the God of these religions (at least in general) but at the same time does not entail any of these 3 specifically.
Now, no real philosophers ask "who caused God?" That objection is unreasonable. Secondly, WHERE IN MY DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT DO YOU DISAGREE WITH A PREMISE? WHERE DID I ASSUME GOD WAS OR WAS NOT CAUSED? You simply jumped to the objection you wanted to give without understanding my argument. If you read my argument, yyou would see that the SUM OF CONTINGENT THINGS (NOTE I DID NOT SAY THE UNIVERSE!!!!!) Requires an external cause. Something outside of the sum of contingent things BY DEFINITION is necesary. I did not postulate that it is, I demonstrated that the sum of contingent things which exits requires an external cause and hence this external cause exists and it follows that it exists necessarily and therefore in principal cannot have a cause.

After that, I briefly went through some of this being's traits that it must have, reminding readers that books could be written on this subject and I am only giving a sketch. Further, WHERE DID I MENTION THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE? DID I? THAT HAS NO BEARING ON MY ARGUMENT SO YOU BRINGING IT UP IS JUST A SMOKESCREEN. My argument has everything to do with the nature of things as contingent and necessary but absolutely nothing to do with the beginning of the universe or anything else.

Finally, to review, it seems as though you misundertsand my argument and offer no solid argument of your own.

Debate Round No. 2


Unnecessary suffering and evil according to premise 4:

My example of this will be the raping, murder and deaths of children and babies. I believe that any suffering of children is unnecessary and serves no justifiable purpose. What greater good comes from child rape, or any abuse for that matter? Should we just accept that God allows children to be raped and murdered for a good reason! And when you get to heaven you"ll say, "Oh my! There really was a good reason! Thank you Lord for allowing my child to be raped and murdered!"" I can"t imagine any scenario in which this could ever make sense or bring any good. No one ever says, "Boy, it sure is a good thing our son died!" or "It"s a good thing those 10 million babies died last year!" By all appearances, it's a sad and unfortunate loss without recompense. While some good can come out of tragedy, it's rarely enough to make up for the loss. It's hard to imagine that such a scheme would actually work, or that God would kill children just to bolster salvation rates. (Why not just kill off an atheist like me?)

"You either have a God who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a God who simply watches it and says, "When you"re done, I"m going to punish you." If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That"s the difference between me and your God."
~ Tracie Harris, The Atheist Experience

What makes me most insane is the raping of children by supposed religious priest of the Catholic church! What possible greater good can come from supposed MEN OF GOD RAPING CHILDREN?
The Bible tells us that God's creation testifies to his nature (Romans 1:20). If God is benevolent and cares for children, yet his creation testifies to the contrary, then he has borne false witness against himself. How can we choose to love God when his creation allows us to logically deduce that he allows for gratuitous and unnecessary evil and suffering? If only men were evil, then we might be able to make a case for God's innocence, but all of creation speaks to either a god of malevolence, or a natural indifference. Additionally, the Bible tells us that most people will not make it to heaven (Matt. 7:13, 21-23), so most people will not even be compensated for their suffering; they will suffer in this life only to be rewarded with more suffering in the next.

Most of the harm that befalls children comes from disease and environmental factors, not from malicious human intent. Man did not design harmful viruses, bacteria, and natural disasters. Would it really destroy faith or free will if we lived in a world without these things? Wouldn't we still be able to lie, cheat, steal, assault, kill, destroy, and reject God without them? In order for God to be good this would entail the desire to do all good things equal or above and beyond OUR ability to do good to stop suffering. Anybody with the means and desire to act will act. To not do these things means God either lacks the means or does not have the desire to do so. There cannot be any limitation on God greater than the limitations upon us! Would you stand idly by as someone molested, mutilated and killed your child? If you then, though you are evil, would rescue your child, how much more should your God in heaven if you ask him? But he doesn't. He creates a world where it can happen, and then stands idly by as it does! This is unnecessary suffering, what good comes of the abuse and murder of children? If I had the power to stop all children from suffering I would, why doesn't God? If it is good for humans to alleviate suffering then it is good for God to alleviate suffering, but he does not. if God exists, then we face a logical conundrum: why would a good God allow such evil things to happen to children? If he loves our children more than we do, why would he create a world filled with devastation and not safeguard them from it?

"Why should I allow that same God to tell me how to raise my kids, who had to drown His own?"
~ Robert Ingersoll


The main point is that an omnipotent God creates the rules of logic or causal laws, and is then bound to them. As J.L. Mackie pointed out: "Can an omnipotent being makes things which he cannot subsequently control? Or, can an omnipotent being make rules which then bind himself? He then explains the situation this way: "If we answer 'Yes,' it follows that if God actually makes things which he cannot control, or makes rules which bind himself, he is not omnipotent once he has made them: there are then things which he cannot do. But if we answer 'No,' we are immediately asserting that there are things which he cannot do, that is to say, that he is already not omnipotent." J.L Mackie, "Evil and Omnipotence," in Mind, Vol. 64

The CONS arguments:

1. If a substance is both (a) contingent and (b) exists, it requires an external cause

If I can show one contingent thing to not have a cause then premise one is false. According to modern physics, however things can seemingly happen without cause. There are several things we observe that appear to have no cause. For example, "When an atom in an excited energy level drops to a lower level and emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause of that event. Similarly, no cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus." ( God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, by Victor J. Stenger, Prometheus Books, 2007; 124) So at best, the conclusion that the sum of all contingent substances requires an external cause, should be state as some not all, therefore the argument is false.

CON: "The God I am arguing for does have the traits of the God of these religions (at least in general) but at the same time does not entail any of these 3 specifically."

My response: This statement makes no sense. Perhaps you could explain it better, because it seems contradictory.

CON: "Now, no real philosophers ask "who caused God?" That objection is unreasonable."

My response: Then I guess I am not a philosopher, and the objection is not unreasonable, it is just as reasonable to ask "Who caused God" as it is to postulate a creation from God, so please answer the question.

CON: "Something outside of the sum of contingent things BY DEFINITION is necessary."

My response: Okay, I give you credit, I did jump the gun a bit in regards to the universe comment, my bad. So then what is the point to your argument, just to prove "Something is necessary"? Can I make another assumption about your soon to be assumption, that this something is God and he is necessary? This may work philosophically in some ways, even though your syllogism has failed, but there is no empirical proof that the potential something is the God of monotheistic religions anyways.

CON: "After that, I briefly went through some of this being's traits that it must have, reminding readers that books could be written on this subject and I am only giving a sketch. Further, WHERE DID I MENTION THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE? DID I? THAT HAS NO BEARING ON MY ARGUMENT SO YOU BRINGING IT UP IS JUST A SMOKESCREEN. My argument has everything to do with the nature of things as contingent and necessary but absolutely nothing to do with the beginning of the universe or anything else"

My response: So your argument has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe or anything else, OK. I will assume then you will not be using this argument to prove the possibility of the monotheistic God, which I will remind the readers the Con has not even began to show any evidence for a personal God with the traits defined in my first argument and since I have shown two contingent things that exist without a cause his argument is false and does not prove a God or the God that we are debating here.

Also, point four in my argument stands to be true based on the unnecessary suffering and evil done to children with no proof of a greater good available to the CON.


"While some good can come out of tragedy, it's rarely enough to make up for the loss. It's hard to imagine that such a scheme would actually work"
This quote gives away the entire argument. First of all, how does pro know? How can pro make the claim that "its rarely enough to make up for the loss"? This statement can ONLY BE MADE on the condition that pro knows what good is brought out of the evil or not brought out of the evil. Pro has no way of knowing how all things play out for everyone in the end and therefore cannot make the claim "its rarely enough to make up for the loss." Secondly he says "its hard to imagine that such a scheme would actually work." Well maybe pro's imagination is limited. Or maybe the problem is that even if WE cannot SEE how it would work, it does not follow that it necessarily CANNOT work. Pro goes on to elaborate on the position. The point still stands, even if WE CANNOT KNOW WHAT SPECIFIC GOOD is brought out of evil, it does not follow that there is NO GOOD that God MIGHT or CAN bring out of that evil.

Paradoxes: Pro, you keep restating. I know what you said, I object to it because a limitation on infinite power is itself a self contradiction. Because of that, it is not a thing itself, it is not a coherent concept. You might as well ask God to create a asdjkflasdj; because the concept of a limit on infinite power and asdjkflasdj; are on par with each other in that they are meaningless concepts...that's the point

Now, to affirming my argument:
1) Physics shows certain things do not have a determinist cause. It does not follow that they have no cause whatsoever. At the very least (if you take this line of philosophical reasoning which is I must say dubious...) we can admit that the laws of physics themselves, or the substances they govern function as causes or explanations (explanation might be a better word to avoid the confusion that might arise if we use cause...cause is of course accurate and hence I used it in my argument but sometimes people think this means DETERMINIST cause, which it does not at all!) Physics has not shown things are uncaused but caused in a less than determined manner.

2) "My response: This statement makes no sense. Perhaps you could explain it better, because it seems contradictory."
Okay I'll explain. The being I hope to demonstrate by my arguments has traits (intelligence, infinity, power, etc.) that the 3 religions you mention all believe God has (Judaism and Islam and Christianity all hold least in general....that God has these or similar traits). However, the being I argue for, even if I am correct, does not entail that Christianity, Judaism, or Islam is true. This being fits in, although does not necessarily lead us to believe one of these 3 is true.

3) "Who caused God" as it is to postulate a creation from God, so please answer the question." Why would God need a cause? According to my argument, contingent things need a cause. According to my argument, if it is sound, there is a necessary being which need not have a cause. Further, I explained why it probably has certain traits in my first post. I say it is reasonable to refer to this being as God. I don't care so much about what it is called though. More importantly, the necessary being needs no cause.

4) "Can I make another assumption about your soon to be assumption, that this something is God and he is necessary? This may work philosophically in some ways, even though your syllogism has failed, but there is no empirical proof that the potential something is the God of monotheistic religions anyways."
Um...I don't care if we call it God or Entity X. The point is that my argument (which hasn't failed as I explained) shows that a necessary being exists. I have further explained why this being has certain traits (unique, infinite, intellect, power, simplicity, etc.). If the arguments succeed (which I admit takes more work than a simple post) then it follows that 1 necessary infinitely simple, powerful, intelligible, immaterial, etc. being exists. Call it what you want, I think atheism doesn't have much of a leg to stand on anymore... (TRUE it does not prove Judaism, Christianity, or Islam specifically--but it shows a God as believed by these religions exists)

5) My argument has nothing to do with the beginning but everything to do with a necessarily existent being that is the cause of all things.
Debate Round No. 3


As much as I hate to do it, I am forfeiting this debate. I am way over my head here. The CON by far is a more educated and skilled debater. So please vote CON, he has done a great job. I have scrabbled to learn things on the fly, but no matter what I learn at this point, I cannot articulate to the point of making sound arguments in response to Con's knowledge. The CON is correct that I cannot prove some of my points. To drag this out would only waste the CONS time and to insult his intelligence. I would like to thank the CON for a debate that had me studying like I was back in school!

Vote CON


Thankyou for your time debating and your kind words. It is always powerful when someone admits they don't know about something, that is very admirable. I encourage you to keep up the studying on this matter, it is very interesting and important stuff for sure!
Best regards, enjoyed our debate
Debate Round No. 4
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mr.Moves3 5 years ago
Check out Bro. Eli Soriano's Bible expositions on Youtube. He's the only person that debated against many other religions and he never lose. He would not just assume and make nonsense statements. He only say facts from the Bible. He leads the religion called "The Old Path." It originated from Philippines. Also there is a prophecy on the Bible that the true religion will rise on where the sun is rising. The sun rises on the east, Philippines is on the southeast. And it's also the only country that most accepted the Bible. He preaches facts according to the Bible and Christianity over 20+ hours a day. He also broadcast preaches all over the country using satellite. This religion isn't about money-- unlike most religions. There are Tagalog and English versions on youtube. He is currently in South America and he successfully started over 40 The Old Path Locals in just Brazil itself. Last month, over 200 people were baptized. I was a former Catholic. But he explained all the misleading and invalid things about Catholic religion. Catholic doesn't strictly follows the Bible. Although they claim that they do. In The Old Path, after reading a verse(s), Bro. Daniel and Bro. Eli Soriano will explain what the verse(s) really meant. I was also enlightened about these expositions, there are things that I thought I know, about being a true Christian but I was wrong. Please take a time to watch Bro. Eli's Bible Expositions and Debates on Youtube. I'm not doing this for us, I'm typing all these for you readers. To learn the true Christianity and to be saved. There are English and Tagalog versions. Just please find it. Thanks be to God.
Posted by Proletariat 5 years ago
You shouldn't have given up, he had so many holes you could have poked.
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 5 years ago
What is the first of the Ten Commandments?
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me".

So, they start by stating that there ARE other gods

Posted by Sagey 5 years ago
Though rationally, even Omnipotence cannot create matter and energy from nothing, void or complete vacuum.
So the concept that God did this is utterly idiotic.
It is beyond even the realm of omnipotence.
First it would have to create itself.
Now that's entirely improbable, in any sense of rationality.
This is why extreme Theists are the most Irrational people on Earth.
And why Superstition (Religion, astrology, numerology, etc...) based fundamentalists are definitely the least intelligent people on the planet.
Posted by Scope9023 5 years ago
My only comment is the point regarding an omnipotent God. Just because God CAN do all things does not mean he WILL do all things or that he has to. The argument was stated: "can an omnipotent God create laws which binds himself?" If yes then once he creates such laws he is no longer omnipotent".
Yes he does have the power to do all things, which includes creating rules that binds him. But why must we assume that he must create a rule that binds him? Why would he have to use that power? Why is that argument even necessary?

Is the argument that the term omnipotent is meaningless? that would be a different question.
Posted by Sagey 5 years ago
Oops forgot the funniest part of Genesis image of Earth.
The Earth is supported by Pillars.
LOL, In infinite space, what could be supporting those pillars?
The Bible is hilariously naive.
Posted by Sagey 5 years ago
God, Moral, Unlikely.
The Biblical God describes itself as a Malevolent, Narcissistic Megalomaniac.
No omnibenevolence there, more like OmniMalevolence.
No omniscience there neither, since many of the physical and biological comments within the Bible are indeed wrong and born out of naive misconceptions of reality.
Showing that Bible is definitely not the word of an omniscient God, but the writing were made up by technically naive men.
I like the naive Genesis picture of the Earth created by God.
A flat Earth with a hollow dome containing water above it that has the stars stuck on it like decorations and above the water on this dome is Heaven.
If the Bible were true, our spaceships would crash into the dome and possibly knock one of the stars off it which would fall to Earth or hit the sun or moon on the way back down.
Posted by dannyc 5 years ago
Does your definition of God which states 'perfect' include morally perfect? I.e Morally good? If it does then your arguments work, if it doesn't then your arguments don't work.
Posted by MoralityProfessor 5 years ago
I'd still be interested in debating this with you.... Even with the new stance that G-d 'probably does not' exist.

Once again though, I don't meet your age and/or rank criteria.
Posted by Projectid 5 years ago
Thank you Mikal for pointing that out to me.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sojourner 5 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: Pro conceded.