The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,004 times Debate No: 23176
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




Does God Exist?

I will argue that God does exist....

Round 1 acceptance

My arguments:
1.The origin of the universe
2.The complex order in the universe
3.Objective morality

Definition of God:The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority


I will be playing devils advocate.

Let's go!
Debate Round No. 1


Thx to my OPP for accepting this debate and to our audience for reviewing it........

First I need to say I am not claiming that I can prove that God exists with absolute certainty. I am just saying that on balance of evidence theism is more plausible than not.

Now I ask that our audience leave your beliefs at the door so to speak look at both sides of this debate with "open minded" point of view judge/vote based on the best argument. I feel it is important for skeptics on both sides to recognize that not all their beliefs are based upon physical evidence.

A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles: (1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence (2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cant be tolerated. But strong atheism says there is no God even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. The lack of observational evidence for a natural cause for the universe, the strong atheist believes that the universe has a natural cause and that there is no God, contradicting that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence.[1]

The evidence for design is seen in the nature of the universe and how it came to be. The big bang theory(BBT) states that the universe came from a singularity of virtually no size which gave rise to the dimensions of space and time, in addition to all matter and energy. Short hyper-inflationary expansion. The cause of this inflation is unknown, but is needed for life in the universe.

There is evidence that our universe was designed by intelligent force. The design of the universe is just one line of evidence that tells us that God is real and created the universe.

The origin of the universe:

Such metaphysical beliefs are often incorporated in popular books about cosmology, although it is seldom stated that those beliefs are without any evidence. As much as atheists would love to get rid of a beginning to the universe, it is apparent that it did begin to exist some time in the past. The skeptical mind argues "What if the universe was always here, eternally self existent, the same way that most people see God as self existent ? This is a fair question. Lets look at what would be required if this were the case, and the evidence for and against this notion.

If the universe never began to exist then that means that the number of events in the past is infinite. But infinity is nothing more than an illusion. While I do not deny that it has truth as a mathematical concept, I do not believe that it can exist in reality. Mathematicians show that the idea of an infinite collection of things leads to self-contradictions. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality. Mathematician David Hilbert said "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." This tells us that the number of past events is finite. The universe cannot just go back forever so the universe must have begun to exist.

I have shown that the universe is not infinite meaning it begun to exist.

(1) Whatever begins to exist requires a cause
(2) The universe began to exist
(3) Therefore the universe requires a cause

By the standard laws of logical reasoning this is true.[2]

The cause of the universe:

(1)What caused the universe is not inside of space.
(2)Is also temporal meaning it never began to exist the cause is eternal
(3)The cause is not material there was matter before the big bang

We know space, time, and matter began to exist. What could have caused them to begin to exist ?

(1)abstract objects like numbers
(2)Our minds

This cause created the physical universe, the cause is supernatural(because it brings nature into being and is not inside of nature itself) The cause violates the law of conservation of matter is therefore performing a miracle.

The cause of the universe is supernatural and it performed a miracle. The cause of the universe must be God by definition is the creator and ruler of the universe.

Objective morality:

"Objectivism" is the idea that right and wrong are true regardless what anyone believes. Right and wrong never change. Example of objectivism: Torturing people for fun is wrong is objectively true whether we believe it or not. If everyone was brainwashed into thinking it is morally right, torturing people just for fun would still be wrong.

"Relativism" is the rejection of objectivism. The doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture and society and are not absolute.

Objectivism holds that there is one true morality binding all of us. We have three options (1) Morality could come from a benevolent god (2) it could come from human nature for example, we could have evolved an innate set of moral values or it could come from (3) rational principles that all rational people must recognize like the rules of logic and math.

With this evidence, it seems relativism is wrong, so it would make sense to accept objective morality as actually being the case.

Now we see objective morality exist, and by definition is unchangeable. So we know there is a changeless essence out there that is the "good". We also have a duty to this objective "good". When we go against it we feel guilt. The "good" is alive, and interactive. We have a personal duty to an objective "good" being, so, it seems that he is deserving of the name God.[3]

So we know:

(1)Objective moral values exist
(2)Objective moral values require the existence of a god
(3)Therefore, a God exists

The complex order in the universe :

The nature of the universe reveals that a purely naturalistic cause for the universe is extremely unlikely and therefore illogical. You cannot say that a miraculous naturalistic event is a scientific explanation. Miracles are only possible when an immensely powerful being as shown above intervenes to cause them. When a model doesn't work, scientists must be willing to give up their model for a model that fits the facts better. In this case, the supernatural design model fits the data much better than the naturalistic random chance model.

John O'Keefe astronomer at NASA said: "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."

Atheists say they have the answer to why there is something rather than nothing the nothing created it. This explanation takes science and turns it on its head performing miracles of creation through unknown physics or mechanisms that are extremely unlikely to occur. The simplest explanation for the existence of all the something we see is that an extremely intelligent being by definition God willed it to happen for His own purposes and left evidence of that purpose in the nature of His creation and His communication with the creatures He created. The important things in life are not derived from the stuff we can see, but from the One who created it.[4]

This means by the evidence I have shown that theism is more plausible than not.



phantom forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


IveGotUrOuts forfeited this round.


phantom forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


IveGotUrOuts forfeited this round.


First I would like to point out my opponent has already poorly conducted himself by committing the technique of "shotgun argumentation".He has presented numerous arguments making multiple claims but not a whole lot of backing, thus forcing me to spend a great deal more on points than he has and using up my space.

Burden of proof

My opponent tries to shift the burden of proof to a 50-50. BOP is not shared. It is the theists burden to prove that God probably exists. Not on balance.

First off, the cause of the hyper-inflationary expansion for the big-bang would not need to be known. This is just God of the gaps fallacy. We can't explain this so God must have done it. Cleary fallacious reasoning.

Beginning of universe or always existed.

My opponent believes that the universe had a beginning. His reasoning is that infinity is an illusion and thus does no exist. But wait a minute, my opponent has already conceded his point. Pro states that God has existed for all time, thus according to my opponents own statements, infinity is in fact not an illusion as my opponent claims. Viewers please drop this point.

(Also addressed further below.)

Kalam Cosmological argument

"P.1 Whatever begins to exist requires a cause"

My opponent makes not support. Simply states his assertion and moves on. Therefore I can't do a whole lot since my opponent has the burden to prove this statement and I don't have anything to work with.

According to our current knowledge in quantum mechanics, matter does begin to exist ex nihilo in a sense. The appearance of "virtual particles" has been observed to come into being spontaneously and stochastically in empty space, meaning there is no external cause and it is impossible to predict when it will happen.

Furthermore if everything that begins to exist must have a cause and God caused the universe, what caused God? The theist must view God exempt from this viewpoint but this really just begs the question.

"(2) The universe began to exist"

Law of conversation of matter; matter cannot be created or destroyed. The universe can't have begun to exist because that is a logical impossibility. You cannot destroy matter nor can you create it. The net-sum of all matter in existence is stagnant. It always has been the same and always will be. Matter does not begin to exist. It is simply rearranged. For example you may say a carpenter makes a wooden horse but the matter used to make it already pre-exist, thus it came about ex-materia, not ex-nihilo. Out of nothing comes nothing. My opponents argument is fallacious.

My opponents only defence against this is "the cause violates the law of conservation of matter is therefore performing a miracle." This requires the belief that logic is relative, therefore not absolute. I will explain how. My opponent acknowledges that logic shows matter cannot begin to exist or be destroyed. Thus he believes God is not bound by logic and is veering from the more common belief that omnipotence is restricted by logic. If God is above logic that means he can change logic. If God can change logic than logical facts do not exist for that would mean God could make the sentence, I own a green bottle that is yellow and does not belong to me, make perfect sense. Thus God could make the statement. God does not exist a fact.

The world must be free of contradictions and paradoxes. Thus God can't be above logic and my opponents point has failed.

This has also already been addressed earlier. My opponents only support for this premise is that infinity is impossible. That it is paradoxical to have an infinite amount of past events. However he also claims that God has always existed and if God has always existed the number of past events must be infinite.

(3) Therefore the universe requires a cause"

The before premises are not sound therefore rendering the conclusion false.

The moral argument

Though my opponent does not spend a small time explaining this argument, he does very little actually barely anything, to prove that objective morality even exists. The only thing we can find my opponent say in support of this is, "when we do wrong we feel guilt". I'll skip past the obvious fallacy of my opponent assuming wrong exists, since I think it was just not thought out at all, and move the actual contention. My opponent assumes that guilt entails an objective moral code but really gives no credible reasoning. The evolution of the mind causes humans cognitive faculties to form into naturally telling us in a sense certain facts. For example it is obvious that a society in which people kill eachother will not progress, thus the ones who think in more rational terms are the ones who will survive and eventually pass on genetic traits that make us sense murder to be a wrong thing.


My opponent again does very little to support his argument. He does nothing to show how the earth is complex in a way that entails a creator, simply says that complexity neccesetates the supernatural.

Complexity does not conclude a creator as shown by science. It does not require an intelligent mind in the least bit, as evidenced by extreme complexity of certain crystalline structure of metamorphic rocks. Don't be confused, I am not talking about naturally formed complexity formation. These rocks are heated by scientists in a lab to the point in which their crystalline structure changes. There is no possibility of the scientists purposefully crafting the complexiness to be retained despite its change but it never the less is. Thus complexity does not require God and my opponents argument has been debunked.

In a naturally evolved world, the superior are those who are most likely to survive. From studying evolution we see that the most orderly structures are the best performing. In other words, organisms appear to be made by an intelligent designer but it is really just evolution working to efficiency.

My opponent has been very consistent in offering little backing to his claims. Therefore I believe the con vote most justified.

Debate Round No. 4


IveGotUrOuts forfeited this round.


Extend and all that.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by K.GKevinGeary 6 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: I think that guy below me has a hard on for voting against pro, though i did not do any research to his claim, I give conduct to pro because Con ffed first, though coming back, arguments i dont give to anyone due to the debate not being finished, sources both had, spelling if i can read it both is fine. Though both sides arguments were well put, so I lean more Con by my bias that haunts me regarding the subject though irrelevant, But arguments go to no one due to the FFs that screw things up.
Vote Placed by Mrparkers 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to meet burden of proof. Both sides FF'd, but Pro plagiarized his arguments, so I give conduct to Con as well.