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

Does God Exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 2/21/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,221 times Debate No: 120430
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (76)
Votes (1)




This can either be acceptance round by the opponent and I'll put my argument for Round 2 or they can go ahead and go first with their argument.


I'll just state my position so you have something to jump off. I'm going to take the hard atheism position and say that I make the knowledge claim that god does not exist. The soft argument is comfy. But I fall into the hard category more than not so there it is. Your floor
Debate Round No. 1


I believe there is God and there could be many Gods. I'll now go in depth on not only that, But the existence of God for confirmation of what I mentioned beforehand. I won't too much focus exclusively on myself and my experience/beliefs but I will speak on a general aspect and as a whole and arrive at a conclusion.

I will cover:
> Creation of earth.
> The universe.
> Life on earth.
> Human condition.

There are 4, 200 religions in the world most of which stem back to 5 wide religions. Almost all religions put God at the center of their faith. Christians, Sikhs, Muslims, And Jews all believe the universe were made by a grand creator. Something that divides a lot of these religions within themselves as well as believers and non believers is The Big Bang Theory.

The Big Bang Theory.
This theory is typically used by some people on both sides of the debate as an example of why both God is real and not real. The Big Bang now widely acknowledged as the most probable beginning of our universe refers to a pinpointed beginning to our existence. We do not know what caused it but all of a sudden the universe was born as an extremely high density and extremely high temperature pin prick that quickly expanded large enough to cool and for atoms to form. Using Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, And using Edward Hubble's microscope observation that galaxies are moving away from one another, We have been able to decipher that since the beginning of time as we know it, The Big Bang, The universe has been continuing to expand. If there was a bang so to speak it must've been created by something bigger than the universe itself. Scientists have gone into further detail about the creation, Suggesting the first 380, 000 years of the universe were dark as it was simply too hot for light to shine. After all those years, Matter cooled enough for atoms to form during what is known as the Era of Recombination, Which according to NASA resulted in a transparent electrical neutral gas which caused a flash of light during the Big Bang. This is detectable today as cosmic microwave background radiation. If we forget the time scale for a moment, This sounds very familiar to the Christian ear, God says "Let there be light" and there was light. Although one can argue that focusing on that sentence alone is somewhat selective.

Ancient Scriptures AKA the bible.
The Quran is also pretty affirmative of the Big Bang in part. Although it is never fully mentioned, A period of existence before the earth began is noted with many Islamic leaders acknowledging the big bang as consistent with what God relays to Mohammed. Atheists on the other hand see the Big Bang and similar scientific discoveries like shoestring theories, Has proof that there is no god. Many believers tend to regard their religious scripture highly, And many but not all use only words found in said scripture to back up their beliefs rather than measurable evidence. Everything we have discovered in the last 100 years or so has shaken religion to it's very core. Hubble's discovery that galaxies were huddling apart and the ability to measure that cosmic microwave background information has provided solid evidence that the Big Bang happened which is a blow to some religions that refuse to acknowledge this. Atheists somehow seem to think that the fact that some religions have been exposed to contain a few scientific flaws means that god is not real but that isn't quite accurate.

There must be a creator.
If we can agree that there was a Big bang, A beginning point if you will, All of the laws on the earth and the universe beyond tell us that something can't come from nothing. This is the second law of thermodynamics. There must have been a catalyst or trigger to the start. What or who was the catalyst? Or are we to deny every law of physics and say that all the matter that emerged in the Big Bang simply came from nowhere? But if it did come from somewhere, Then where? Was it God? If it was indeed divine intervention then who or what is the focus of that divinity. Are they god? If so, Are they alone? If God is alone then why did countless religions refer to the creator as a "he" when the genderization in itself causes a pretty big issue. Is God genderless? Therefore living beyond the need to be defined by their own ability to reproduce. If something created something else that in turn must have a creator. Extending back there are two probabilities, The Big bang either just happened or it was ignited, We simply cannot say. Let's look at life closer to home and one of the major domestic blows delivered to religious arguments for God. Religion is an issue with so many varying strands of belief meaning that not all believers can be "right" so to speak. An early issue with the bible for example is a creation of Adam and Eve. The whole Garden of Eden exchange and the suggestion that the God made every animal we know today in its fully developed form. What we know now and can now prove was that there were organisms and animals that predate human existence by millions of years. Why do religious books such as the old testament, The Hebrew bible and the Quran not mention dinosaurs for example. Thousands of dinosaur bones have been found in North America, China and Argentina. We have found bones dating back from 68 million years, And fossils over 2 million years old. We can even see their bones hanging in museums for ourselves. Speaking of bones and fossils, We have enough of them to all but prove evolution. A theory developed from Charles Darwin's concept of survival of the fittest and change through adaptation. We can see -- physically see the whales descended from land mammals. Species are continuing to evolve. Humans are getting taller and moths have literally changed color since the industrial revolution. The evidence of dinosaurs falls into religion as the scientific support of evolution. But what comes to a blow to religion isn't necessarily a knock to the existence of God. Many modern believers will take religious scripture with a more light hearted approach and accept them as guidelines of how to interpret their faith.

Elaborating: Science.
In fact, Some find science to be a reaffirmation of their beliefs as the miracles of the universe and life on earth are brought to light. Many see the perfect conditions under which the big bang was triggered as well as the evolution and the ideal conditions of our earth allow life to flourish as evidence of intelligent design. Indeed many see the apparent laws of physics as further confirmation that rules have been set in biology, Cosmology and the universe as we know it. Wasn't our path to existence to score too perfect? Change a few tiny factors for example, The ideal position of Jupiter in our solar system which attracts many asteroids away from the earth and it all very well could have not happened. Interestingly celebrated 90th and 20th century scientist Albert Einstein closely followed the views of 17th century philosopher Baruch Spinoza. He believed the notion of God to be an expression of the underlined unity of the universe.

Elaborating: God.
Perhaps the God we speak of is the harmony of the path that goes to physics rather than a higher being. Is God particles and energy that make up the world we know and the rules we live by? Another strand the God debate very much concerns the human condition. Many argue that if god were real, Why would he not prevent disasters and protect innocent people. Where was God during the boxing day tsunamis of 2004. Where was god during the 2 world wars. Where was god when the atomic bombs were dropped? And where was he during 9/11. Where is god now? If God was real, Why would he let people suffer in such intense and cruel ways. Those who believe strongly in the bible will tell you that God allows suffering because we must know suffering to know love or its all part of Gods plan. Others who argue for God as a force of science say sure there may be a rule setter, A creator behind the big bang but they are so huge and so inconceivable to us that perhaps they wouldn't concern themselves with our earthly issues. Way too small and insignificant for them to even see. On the flip side of murder and genocide, We have supposed miracles. Our whole existence could be considered a miracle of sorts. And that we don't yet know how to explained what happened. By all accounts, The big bang, Evolution, All of it, It seems miraculous. Miracles can be considered both divine or coincidental depending on your outlook. Many who feel the presence of God in their lives who see miraculous things happen to them and their family members will be convinced of the point of almost proof as the existence of a guardian angel or divine power or being.

Mathematicians | Physicists.
Many who promote science over miracles will instead say that miracles are events that have explanations and we just don't know them yet. For example Isaac Newton noted how gravity from the sun keeps planets in their orbits. Why he could not explain AKA how these planets got into orbits in the first place in or rotated around the sun in the same direction, He put down to a divine miracle. He said "This most beautiful system of the sun, Planets and comets, Could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. " However, Centuries later, Pierre Laplace was able to fill in the gaps as to the mechanics of the universe. There are of course still some things we can't explain, But for some that doesn't mean that there isn't an explanation. No scientist will ever claim to know all the answers to the questions posed by the universe. However, They will actively seek to find them overtime.

I'll explain a few more points in next round while rebutting your points. Your turn.


So before I jump in, I just want to tie things down a bit. I want make sure we don't waste our future rounds hashing out definitions. I'm a little confused about which god or gods that you might be arguing for. Is it a deist god that makes the universe and never intervenes? Is it a god from one of the world religions? Does your god or god have agency. We both agree that not every posited god can exist at once. So it would be helpful for me if we pin down the god or gods that your positing so I can make points against them. I would also like to point out that I could not find an actual reason for your belief in god. If missed it let me know, Because I can't judge the evidence if I don't know how your applying it to your claim. Now let's dive in.

Religion. . . .
I think the number is actually in the ten thousands. I know that Christianity has about 30, 000 sects alone. I'm assuming that you're not talking about sects though. But I wanted to point this out. When you said almost all religions put god at the center of their faith, I would like to clarify that they all put "a God" at the center of their faith. These are not the same gods because their holy books contradict. So if you're argument is that they're all talking about the same god, Then that means that at a bare minimum, All of the religions except maybe one got some or all of the message wrong. How would we even figure out which one is the right one, If any? I don't find it particularly surprising that all religions have similar stories. Tribes have been making local gods for centuries at least. It would logically entail that if a bunch of nameless pagans could make up thousand of gods, That major religions can do the same thing.

Big Bang. . . .
I would like to point out that the big bang is not a perfectly calculated theory. It has a major stopping point before the "good" part and because we're working on a cosmic scale, There can be slight margins of error when making predictions over long periods (like the beginning of what we call time. ) I would also like to point out that there are competing theories to the big bang that could easily be more viable given sufficient research. But we'll leave these out since they are not at the top of the food chain. There is no scientific proof that the big bang is the cause of everything in the cosmos. It only accounts for the observable universe and we can't see the rest of the cosmos because of limitations with the speed of light and objects moving away too fast, Etc. So for all we know, This could have been the one millionth big bang (Party! ) That's why I believe the big bang doesn't even get us close to god. Even if I go the steel man route and say that the big bang is the cause of everything, You still don't have proof that god exist. I will steel man it further and say that even if god exists, Then who made god? If creationism is true and life needs a creator, Then god needs a creator. So who created God? Was it God's God? Who created God's God? Was it the God of God's God? That is called the infinite regress. You can't justify god because god requires justification. If you pose god as self justifying, Then it's circular logic. But I'll grant you one further. If god is self justifying and you can demonstrate him in reality, Then I lose. So produce god to my senses and I will concede. I don't mean to sound harsh, But I must clearly demonstrate the absurdity of this line of reasoning, Nothing personal.

Scriptures. . .
I can throw out the scriptures wholesale because they're just old books until you prove that their respective god's exist. Even if they do exist. I wouldn't necessarily worship that god, Because if the god is evil, I will denounce that god. If the god is moral. I will ask him why he makes us suffer so. I suspect that I would not accept his answer, Unless it was a godly answer that my human brain could never come up with (special pleading). I think that's all I can say on that one unless you can open up another point that forces me to address it differently.

Creator? No Creator?

I've already demonstrated that the big bang is not proven to have been the first cause, So that bled over into this. So with no first cause, We don't need a god anymore. If god is not necessary, Then he cannot be justified. In the absence of an answer to the cosmic question, We have to look at what we have. From every case that we can observe, The evidence seems to indicated that life reproduces on our own. Abiogenesis has been shown to be possible under the proper settings. That means that Abiogenesis already has more evidence than any god claim in history. I would also like to point out that I'm not really convinced if a scientist is religious or if they convert on their deathbed, Etc. Scientists are not authorities. There work is not respected because of their title. It's respected because their theories can be demonstrated in a lab by literally any person on earth who has the material. This means I don't have to trust anyone. I can make natural selection happen in my backyard. I can drop a pen 1, 000 times and it will drop each and every time and if it doesn't, Then the scientist is willing to change their mind. Because science is not a religion.

Your last two points seem like a non sequitur because I didn't see any actual argument for god, It looked more like a hypothetical back and forth. With that in mind, I will not justify my claim.

My claim is not only can we not prove god, We can actually disprove god. Now obviously, I can't address every single religion on an individual basis. However, I can eschew most of them for various broad reasons. All deist gods can be tossed out because those gods don't interact with us anyway, So we can never know them and praying to them or worshipping them is useless because they're not even watching. All omni gods can be thrown out because omni anything is not coherent with reality, Making it physically impossible. Anything that is just physical objects with no intelligence could be called god. But there is no practical reason to do so because then the word god is no more interesting than the word rock or thunder. Any god that created the universe is out as well due the argument that I made during earlier points. So what are we left with? A possibly super powered god that did not create the universe and cannot be seen in reality. Since this god is not omnipotent. It logically follows that this god is in the observable universe, Because he's only superpowered, So he has limits. But now this final model falls because we can find this god nowhere in the observable universe! So now we have no gods to speak of. If you feel like I missed a god scenario, Please let me know so I can refute that as well.

Alright tear me apart.
Debate Round No. 2


Sorry for the confusion my friend. "Is it a deist god that makes the universe and never intervenes" - yes that's the god I am referring to.

Sorry I have never heartd of sects, Can you explain it for me? I didn't know it was that many religions

Big Bang
I thought the big bang was a really good theory to put into this argument, But what else would it be? What other competing theories are there. " I don't mean to sound harsh, But I must clearly demonstrate the absurdity of this line of reasoning, Nothing personal. " - It's fine. You're cool and awesome and know how to debate unlike some people.

I'm unsure why suffer still happens it's unfortunate
" I can drop a pen 1, 000 times and it will drop each and every time and if it doesn't, Then the scientist is willing to change their mind. " - Good analogy I understood that

Elaboration: Religion
Back to religion as a notion. This is the issue for many people. Why are there so many religions. How can just one group be right and so many millions more wrong? Why have so many people in tact with god in so many ways. If god supposedly spoke to some x number of people millennia years ago, Why didn't he speak to many people at once with a clear defining path rather than speaking to individuals who were then suppose to just get along? He would've saved thousands of years of ambiguity. Religions by and large bit of cost not all refer back to scripture written thousands of years ago for their guidelines on how to interpret god, And often how to interact with others. This is a big issue for many. Why would religion not seek same understanding, Why would many blindly stick to what many others consider to be outdated information? It all may or may not make god less real to them but they may have a better understanding of their relationship to the divine. Many arguments suggest that religion were created to control people by abusing their faiths. When we examine the core values of religion, We see very similar themes. The need to be a good person, Helping others and loving others. But bibles are turning people against one another on mass. How can that be holy in any way? This can hypothetically be an act of self-flagellation. Wouldn't God the creator simply want us to be good and to be kind? Perhaps religion and faith should be separated because they are not the same. A person can believe in God or be open to the prospect without confining themselves to the rules of religion. So how do we go about answering this question, The ultimate question. First we must remove religion from the question, It is too divisive to be even considered in the black and white matter of 'Belief' and 'Non-belief'

Scientific discovery has come a long way in uncovering many mysteries of our past as well as determining some of the likely outcomes of our future, However there are so many unanswered questions about the universe, Its creation, Our earth's creation and why the laws of physics are indeed laws. Since our inception, Our progression as a human race has hinged on people constantly asking questions and striving for the answers. We are constantly in a state of proving and disproving what we already know. Is God real? Yes.

If a God does exist, Perhaps their existence and being is simply beyond our imagination, To unquestionably disbelieve is as blind sided as unquestionably believing. As time goes on, Our knowledge of creation is becoming clearer and perhaps one day we will know the answer one way or another. It is okay to not totally understand everything, After all we are trying to determine the entire universe which is something not even the top brains in the world can do. It is not okay however to stop asking questions. You should not believe something because someone told you to. (These are hypothetical, Not necessarily meant towards you) > You should not act in a certain way because there's a book that says that that's how things are done. Be alert, Be curious, Consider why you believe what you do and only then will we as a human race be able to continue to work towards the answer, Whether it be the existence of God or how many Gods there are.


Well I now have a better understanding of your beliefs. Let's unpack some more things.

Sects are subdivisions of a religion: For Christianity, You have things like puritanism, Lutheranism, Mormanism, The first Baptist church, The second Baptist church (atheistic humor ) etc.

My problem isn't the big bang itself. The problem is that it's a non sequitur in respect to god because their is no logical entailment between the two. This argument would work for you if you had a visible god, But how do we logically connect two things when we have no idea what the other thing is. If it wasn't a non sequitur, We wouldn't even know it. The other part of this problem is the infinite regress. This is an epistemology problem that plagues most philosophers. I belief needs to be justified for one to hold it rationally. Beliefs tend to be justified with other beliefs. But this causes a never ending chain. The chain cannot be connected to itself because this creates circular reasoning, Which is fallacious because just about anything can be justified by a circular system. This is why I said that God would need a God, And god's god would need a god, Etc. That's the infinite regress.

Under a secular worldview, Suffering makes perfect sense. The world is cruel. There's nobody up in the sky watching us and we have to fix this problem ourselves. Not making claims here, Just highlighting secular reasoning.

The problem with saying that there is something to faith because so many people agree on it is known as an ad populum argument. This is not a fallacy per se. But it really only applies to things like politics and linguistics where subjectivity can matter. The problem with ad populum arguments are the same as with circular reason except worse. With ad populum, Somebody could literally justify anything. We could all agree tomorrow that the sky is green and that computers deserve civil rights and it would be correct to believe that. This would cause total chaos. Now you might say, "well people aren't just gonna randomly make bad decisions, They'll think it through and get it right" to this, I will point out that everyone on earth used to believe that the earth was flat and also the center of the universe. People used to believe that the heart was the organ responsible for thought. People, Not even a century ago, Used to believe that women who complained suffered from "hysteria" and had to be sexually stimulated by the doctor to cure it. These were all ad populum arguments. Do you think this is a good standard for anything at all, Let alone the single most important question in the universe?

If you want to throw religion out and just let people have faith in a higher power, I'm totally on board. As long as those people don't tell that their faith means I have to live my life differently and they better not use it to justify evil acts. But I'm not sure such a solution would even be attainable.

I would never hold any position unquestionably as you mentioned (I understand all of your points were hypothetical, Just pinning this down. ) I only hold positions for which I have sufficient evidence. No more, No less. I would also like to point out that I am not married to my beliefs. If I was to find out that a belief was not justified, I would throw it in the trash without a second thought. As long as I can get consistent demonstrations from my consciousness, Then I have everything I need.

At the moment, I have not yet seen convincing evidence for a god. I also believe that my evidence for no gods that I presented in my previous argument is currently holding up. So I await more evidence from you or possibly a refutation of my no gods model. Feel free to come at me hard. I like a good logical discourse. You can insult my ideas all you like. That is how I keep them honest. If my beliefs can't hold up under scrutiny, Then I have no good reason to hold them.
Debate Round No. 3


Welp I admit you took me down good job dude. Don't know what else to say :D you've taught me a lot, I'm starting to not believe in God lol. I only really believed in him because my family does, When I was growing up and stuff and going to church like it was instilled in me, But I always wondered how god existed? I never understood because you can't see him. I always looked into the sky and tried to imagine heaven but I don't know. Give me some more tips that might help.

Thanks for the debate!


Thank you, I appreciate the compliment. I love knowledge and I always want to learn more all the time. The best piece of advice that I could give is not to take me at my word. Research for yourself and always follow where the evidence leads. There plenty of beauty and wonder in the natural world. The best tool in knowledge is knowing when to say "I don't know" to quote Tracy Harris "Nobody is forcing you to make a decision about god, So it's okay to say that I'm not going to form a belief until I have all the facts" This was very powerful for me helped me to understand that I don't have to have all the answers. I can learn and grow and wait for the proper moment to accept a belief. When it's been demonstrated. Life has so much more meaning when you know it's the only one you got. Thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
76 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kvng_8 3 years ago
Thanks samuel!
Posted by samuel7788 3 years ago
Such a nice debate!
Posted by Kvng_8 3 years ago
Con is the winner of this debate as voted from omar. He has him as winner, But he changed it just because they argued. Nevertheless, WrickItRalph wins the debate.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
@NotSteve. I know what you mean. There were points in the debate where Pro was mention possible refutations from my side. Now I give him points for being honest about it. But in a debate, You keep that stuff a secret and make your opponent do the leg work. I'm doing their job for them even if they are right, Lol.
Posted by Kvng_8 3 years ago

Fair enough, I see what you are saying
Posted by NotSteve333 3 years ago
Personally felt like Pro talked down his own point a bit to much. I know this is a good strategy to establish what you're up against, But I feel like you spent too much time on it instead of making real points.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
I didn't say not atheist. I said not atheist who is seeking knowledge. You can't just strip the qualifiers off my word and say it's absurd. You have to refute the whole thing.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago

"No atheist who is seeking accurate knowledge would reject healthy discourse. "
Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
You say I'm not a good atheist and then you reject healthy discourse. No atheist who is seeking accurate knowledge would reject healthy discourse. Calling me a centrist is silly. People don't only have to only take pro, Con, Or middle on everything. So unless you can prove that I take a middle position on everything, Then I'm not a centrist.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago

"It's about a healthy discourse"
Spoken like a true centrist.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
Who won the debate:--
Reasons for voting decision: 1

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