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

Do you think god exists?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,708 times Debate No: 106453
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (73)
Votes (1)




I don't think so, there's no proof and it sounds very nonsensical.


Well necessarily speaking God cannot be proven through empirical evidence. Neither is God a scientific claim. He is a logical one, so to establish the existence of God we must realize the means to prove his existence.

The law of inertia states: the tendency of an object to remain at rest or in motion. Newton's First Law of Motion states that an object will remain at rest or move at a constant speed in a straight line unless it is acted on by an unbalanced force.

The foundation on which all particles move: gravitational force is directly proportional to the mass of both interacting objects, more massive objects will attract each other with a greater gravitational force. So as the mass of either object increases, the force of gravitational attraction between them also increases.

Change happens...

A reminder that this proceeds empirical evidence. Thus it is posteriori

A potential cannot be actualized without a prior actuality and a cause outside itself.

Hence the log is only made to a chair when a force outside itself (us) intellectually decides to create such an object.
Therefore the log does not actualize it's potential to be chair. If it does so, then the potentiality would constantly become it's actuality, or not at all.

The act of which of our potential to be created being actualized is contingent on an outside force.

Nothing can be the changer and the changing 'thing.'
Hence X cannot change to Y if Y is changing to Y.

Or man cannot create man if man is being created.
Therefore we must have an unchanged changer.

Therefore a First Mover (changer) exists.
Debate Round No. 1


Firstly, thanks for posting.

God dosen't make much logical sense. It dosen't make sense for a person to have supernatural powers and be worshiped, and exist in the sky and just a lot of non-evidence. There would probably be, some evidence if a God Existed.

A god would pop-up sometimes and likely be more helpful.

It's your turn.


A word of advice... if anyone tells you God is outside of the laws, logic and among other things they are wrong.

The only thing that contradicts God is himself.

God is logic.
God cannot make illogical choices etc.

Suffering exists because we cause it.

If I'm a gunsmith and I design a hunting rifle for the purpose of hunting animals. And someone buys my firearm but instead of hunting animals they participate in a murderous crime then I am not at a fault.

The point i'm trying to make is there's a distinction from the intention of the former and the action of the latter.

God made man to exist with him, for there to be no suffering etc.
He also made man with the capacity of free will.

To argue that we do not posses free will is to say God is evil.
As many protestants do (which is wrong.)

The argument for predestination is simply this: man is doomed from the beginning of our first initial sin. Therefore out of the damaged humans God picks the ones to be saved (it's nuts I know.)

God cannot tell the future per se, but he knows us quite well and statistically speaking can get a pretty good understanding of what you'll do.

As I said again if it's predestination it contradicts God's all loving characteristic.

Therefore it must be out of probability he chooses rather than predetermining it.

God knows that there won't be as many people in heaven as there are people that exist and have existed. Frankly it's our fault. Nobody put's the gun and your hand and makes you shoot. You're given a choice and it's yours to choose.

Anyways .. God's all loving ability denies him the capacity to do anything immoral logically speaking. If you possess the ability to be only moral then it's impossible to be immoral. Same as if you only posses the ability to be a dog you cannot be a cat, or if you only posses the ability to be X you can not be Y.

Therefore predestination doesn't exist. It contradicts his characteristics.

As far as God popping up, it has to do with the idea of obligation.
If God showed up humans would feel obligated to do the moral thing rather than what they want.

Humans are moral creatures unless their desire proceeds their 'moral code.'

Therefore if one thought one was obligated to do so they'd do so rather then make the conscious decision themselves. It imposes on our free will by imposing on our ability to make a conscious decision on his existence.

I presented you with a logical argument for the existence of an intelligent designer. And I can present more but...

I'd like to ask what's your proof an intelligent designer doesn't exist?
Debate Round No. 2


There's no real proof for any side.

I think that if an intelligent creator existed, it would be more obvious, as I said.

We cannot be sure. But it's likely, because there is no real evidence. By the way, I was an orthodox an year ago.

But everyone to thier own, I guess.


Yes I was an atheist some time ago, and sort of recently converted.

There is logical proof as I already gave you one.

There's no proof for macro evolution.
No proof for the big bang.

Only theories.
I don't necessarily comment on macro evolution and micro evolution is undeniable. But I do believe that the big bang theory is correct as the logical arguments and the non empirical evidence is staggeringly objectory to the opposite.

To say that knowledge can be gained only a priori is false.
We can observe certainties and draw a conclusion.
As well as make logical arguments.

You're losing sight of what I've been saying. I've given you logical explanations and you've said there is none.

I'll give another brief one...

Everything has a cause.
The universe is not eternal.
The universe therefore must have a cause if it began to exist.
The universe began to exist.

Therefore God exists.

Any objections?


Certain properties deny objects to be infinite.

Hence the laws of physical existence state.
If is to be contained the object must be maintained.
If it is to be maintained the object cannot remain the same forever.
The object can only change logically. Thus a tree cannot become a real life elephant but it can become a chair.
The changed object must contain the same properties when changed. Thus a tree cannot be turned into a diamond chair, but rather a wooden chair.
If it can be contained therefore it is finite.

Imagine domino's set up. The last domino falling is contingent on the former. Thus the potentiality of the falling domino is only acted by a force outside itself.

The first domino is reliant on us pushing it. Our hand is reliant on waves being sent from our brain to our hand.

The brain is reliant on our biological code to do so.

We are reliant on a force outside ourselves.

The series is to be named essentialy ordered. Meaning the latter is reliant on the former to change.
The series cannot be infinite (as was stated in the laws of physical existence.)
The initial action must be done by a force untouched and reliant on another.

Therefore God exists.

Any objections?

If God does not exist objective morals and values do not exist.

Objective morals and values exist.

Therefore God exists.

God is pure act and has no potentiality. He possess no matter only form. Since matter does not make the object but both form and matter.

I'd like you to state all your objections to my claims.
Debate Round No. 3


The universe is clearly not immortal. It dosen't need a creator for that. I know, what you want to say. But that's not reallly proof actually. I think that you're saying something to not much understanding for me.


These arguments are valid. I understand you may not be well read in philosophy so it may be hard to understand the language I'm using.

Yeah the universe is clearly not eternal and therefore must have a cause.

These are valid arguments and have converted many well known atheists, excluding the 'four horsemen' of the new atheists. Although they view them as valid.

I wish you luck but you haven't been able to grasp my attempt at reasoning with you.
Nor have you made any refutations to my arguments, only "that doesn't make sense."

The universe needs an unmoved mover.. sit on that for a while.
Atheists refer that the universe came from nothing but that's logically impossible.
When they say "nothing" they mean a quantum vacuum.
A state of the lowest energy with virtually no particles.
But that isn't nothing..
Where did that quantum vacuum originate from?
It can't create itself.
If X creates X then X doesn't exist since X would not have existed prior therefore it cannot exist.

This was probably the most civil debate I've ever had lol so I thank you for this.
It's been a pleasure.
Debate Round No. 4
73 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ski 2 years ago
I am just dissapointed, this is my first debate and it kind of makes me cry.
Posted by PhilosophyandReligion 2 years ago
I never stated I have all the answers.
Posted by PhilosophyandReligion 2 years ago
I wanted him to object.

If you're going to say we cannot have free will because God is omniscient then you are wrong
Knowledge is what is and what was not what will be.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: backwardseden// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to prove his points to prove that a god exists. And the BOP is always upon him to prove this. Not all atheists believe that something comes from nothing. But all atheists and good scientists will say "I don't know" which was never brought up in Pros arguments whereas its the first thing con said. Pro thinks he and his religion has the answers to everything that there is. And That is a logical fallacy. If he can't prove something he automatically states god did it. Pro also burped up Free Will and then left it there. Well sorry if god is god, there's no free will and he didn't prove it. Pro brought up morality but didn't prove his god had any and that's because his god is the most immoral character ever. He states god is all loving but did not prove it especially with glorious verses of Deuteronomy 13: 9-10 and repeating Deuteronomy 17: 2-5, Numbers 31 the entire book of Nahum and on and on.

[*Reason removal*] The voter doesn"t explain sources.
Posted by PhilosophyandReligion 2 years ago
Very busy at the moment. And that's the argument of motion, not the kalam cosmological argument.
If you state form cannot exist you are wrong.
If you state God is immoral you agree there are objective morals.
If you say the universe was eternal past the BVG theorem disproves you wrong.
Posted by Ezpresso 2 years ago
Ok, this is basically a retortion of the Cosmological argument. Thus I posit to you, do you accept the existence of a God of classical theism PhilosophyandReligion, and if so, I wish to debate you regarding his potential existence.
Posted by Ski 2 years ago
Posted by PhilosophyandReligion 2 years ago
What the? Lmao it posted that 60 times!
Posted by PhilosophyandReligion 2 years ago
What's ignorant, and stupid is to dismiss logic. Think before you speak, especially when it's an ad hominem.
Posted by PhilosophyandReligion 2 years ago
What's ignorant, and stupid is to dismiss logic. Think before you speak, especially when it's an ad hominem.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD here

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.