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

Does God Exist?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Grovenshar has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/10/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 488 times Debate No: 93574
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Here are the rules:

Sources must have a level of credibility equal to, or greater than, Wikipedia.

No personal attacks allowed.

This discussion is limited to the possibility of God's existence, not his nature.

Pro has the burden of proof. Failure to provide strong enough evidence will result in a loss.

Round 1: Acceptance

Round 2: Opening Statements

Round 3-4: Rebuttals and Clarifications

Round 5: Closing Statements Without New Arguments

Failure to comply with the above rules will result in an immediate forfeit of the debate.

Good luck :)


I accept your challenge.
Debate Round No. 1


Thesis Statement:
The universe, as we know it, would not be capable of existing without God.

Evidence 1: Second Law of Thermodynamics
So, what's the second law of thermodynamics state? To paraphrase what could be a book length explanation, the second law of thermodynamics states that energy becomes less useful over time. This is apparent from every single source of energy. For example, take a look at the sun (not really, or you'll go blind). The sun uses nuclear fusion which creates electromagnetic energy or, simply stated, light. This light comes into contact with the surface (or atmosphere) of the earth. That energy which is absorbed creates heat energy, which is widely considered the least useful form of energy. So, if we take into account that all of this matter in the universe was in the singularity prior to the big bang, where did it come from? Well, it has to have existed for an infinite amount of time, otherwise it just "poofed" into existence, which is laughable at best. If it's existed for an infinite amount of time, the second law of thermodynamics will have effected it during that time. That being the case, all the energy within it would be infinitely affected by "unusefulness". The energy would still exist, but it wouldn't be nearly useful enough to sustain the universe in which we live. Thereby, we must conclude that extra energy, or extra usefulness was somehow added. As such, the only assumption possible is that God must exist.

Extra Reading:

Evidence 2: Giraffes
Giraffes have amazing necks. These necks undergo an interesting system of blood pressure. Since the necks are so long, the giraffe heart is 26 pounds, and it makes blood pressure twice as high as ours. The amount of force is extreme here. When a giraffe bends its head down to drink, if it didn't have some "kinks" that were created in the neck, its head would explode from the pressure. These "kinks" effectively create blood wells, so that when its neck is suddenly elevated blood is readily available and the giraffe doesn't faint. This is useful when predators are attempting to hunt giraffes, especially lone giraffes at a pool of water (which isn't a common occurrence). So, how would the giraffe species evolve these traits. There is no need for a giraffe to have kinks in its neck. These would only hinder it when it has a short neck. Without them, the long neck can't even exist. After that, what about the 26 pound heart. Again, its unnecessary and sabotaging without the neck. So, both of these would have to evolve in response to the neck's first growth spurt. This is because the giraffes with these traits would die out because the traits would harm them without the long neck. However, those giraffes that have long necks requiring these traits would be at a disadvantage themselves. The conclusion that giraffes could evolve without outside interference would require giraffes to cease existing.

Extra Reading:

Evidence 3: Life on Earth
Finally, we take a look at abiogenesis. First off, the idea that a cell could form out of a collection of amino acids jumbled together to form proteins (some of the simplest proteins are actually useful for breaking down organic material) that happened to form organelles is absolutely absurd. The chances of it happening are astronomically low. It's about as low as, say, the existence of God. However, that is not all that I have in store. A problem arises in the ability for this primordial, uncoordinated cell to reproduce. How would the cell produce DNA? It would have random strings of RNA, at best. This cell would then have to go through the process of mitosis in order to reproduce. Mitosis is an incredibly complex system that requires the cell to rip itself apart. A cell that doesn't even have the instructions encoded on its questionable RNA would have to A) copy its organelles, B) copy the RNA (somehow), C) split itself apart while distributing RNA and organelles evenly, and D) avoid losing the delicate balance that allows the cell to maintain homeostasis and not, subsequently, explode.

Extra Reading:

Final Statement:
The universe, as we know it, can't exist without God. Not only is it physically impossible and statistically improbable, it falls away from the principle known as Occam's Razor. The existence of God is the simplest solution, and it is far more probable. Therefore we should accept the existence of God instead of denying it.


Let's take a look at your first piece of evidence.

You said that the only possible assumption was that God exists because of the second law of thermodynamics. But how do you know it is just one god, your god? What led you to assume your religion was right, and not anyone else's? Also, God is not the only explanation. There is probably something scientific, but we have not discovered it yet. So it doesn't really make sense to just assume that God added "usefulness" to our universe. So how did our universe become that way? Until science finds an answer, I feel comfortable saying I don't know.

Now your second piece.

Giraffes evolved long necks to be able to reach the tops of trees. They also need a strong heart. This was made through natural selection. Those with short necks would starve, and those with long necks but not a strong heart wouldn't get enough blood to the brain. So what you have left is, well, giraffes. Giraffes evolved this way because all the others died out. Again, natural selection.

Now your final piece.

You said that the chances of life evolving was very low. Yes, but the Earth being in such a perfect position with the sun for life to form is also very unlikely. A person being struck by lightning is very unlikely as well, do you still say these happen because of God? You see, all of these have explanations. Mitosis happens all the time. The cell evolved this to be able to reproduce quickly, so yes, it would have to distribute its DNA equally. But that's just how some cells survive.

Final statement: First of all, Occarn's Razor isn't considered an irrefutable way of logic according to the scientific method. Also, if the existence of God was so probable, there would likely be a scientific study on it, but yet there is no evidence of God found by scientists.
Debate Round No. 2


A Note for the Judges:
My opponent violated the rule "This discussion is limited to the possibility of God's existence, not his nature." by typing "But how do you know it is just one god, your god? What led you to assume your religion was right, and not anyone else's?". He has forfeited the debate, as I stated in the rules. However, I would like to continue this debate. So, I will place forward my rebuttals.

First off, when my opponent says that there is more than one explanation, which is "probably something scientific, but we have not discovered it yet", they absolutely fail this point. If there is no other explanation, then you should assume the current explanation as the only viable explanation until such time as an alternative is presented. To deny such a thing is willful ignorance. Secondarily, as I already pointed out, "usefulness" would have to be added. It does not just poof into existence. To do so would likely violate the first law of thermodynamics "energy cannot be created, nor destroyed." I will emphasize this once more. It is physically impossible for this energy to be as useful as it is without a being beyond physics, which we shall term as God.

My opponent fails to understand the mechanics of natural selection. They assume that the traits I list are helpful for survival, and therefore must come into being. This is not true. Several species have gone extinct, and the giraffe should've as well. As I pointed out the first time round, these traits can't have evolved separately, otherwise the traits would have died out because they were disadvantageous universally, unless paired with the other three. The possibility of all three evolving together would be improbable in the extreme. It would require circumstances that force punctuated equilibrium for such an occurrence to happen.

My opponent pointed out the old chance argument to be pointless, because what happens happens. The chances of everything occurring as they do is minuscule. However, without direct observation of an event, one can't determine how it occurred. Therefore, with chances smaller than average, average being tiny, we might reconsider the possibility of such things. Secondarily, but most importantly, my opponent said "The cell evolved this to be able to reproduce quickly." However, I would contend, as I did the first time round, that the cell wouldn't even be capable of reproduction. Reproduction is already complex, and failure results in immediate termination. For a simple cell to perform a complex operation is impossible.

Final Note:
I will be gone for the next week. I would encourage my opponent to hold off on responding to my arguments until I return on Sunday. And if I don't return in time, judges, remember that my opponent already broke the rules that he agreed to by accepting the debate, and has already lost.


I thought you meant you didn't want me arguing that God is cruel (promotion of slavery, etc.) when you said this wasn't about his nature. Honest mistake by me.

There are probably many explanations for the existence of the universe today and its usefulness. But saying God did it is a bit of a stretch. What if I said unicorns made it? Would you accept that explanation? Probably not, because it's so unlikely. There has been no evidence of God provided by scientists.

I would also like you to read the comments on that page.

There are some things we don't know. But again, it makes no sense to just assume God did it. Just like it makes no sense to assume unicorns did.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.