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

Does God 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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/15/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,522 times Debate No: 79747
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (2)




This debate is currently impossible to accept. If you accept without my permission then you will have to forfeit all points. Please post in the comments if you would like to accept this debate.

Resolution: Does God exist?

Pro: Yes
Con: No

Debate Structure

Round 1: Acceptance

Round 2: Main Points and justifications

Round 3: Main points and justifications (2)

Round 4: Rebuttals

Round 5: Rebuttals (2) and Conclusion


No trolling

No forfeiture

Sources may be posted in the comments if you run out of characters (optional)

Failure to abide by the rules will result in the opposite side receiving all points.


God: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. [2] God is the source of love in the universe.

Exist: have objective reality or being. [1]

My position in this debate is going to be defensive whilst my opponents will be offensive. I will have to disprove my opponents theories.

Sources [1];[2]


God is the source of love in this universe, it gives the creatures the freedom to choose, even the freedom to develop over years. I would like to hear your thoughts at first to start the argument.
Debate Round No. 1


I will begin my argument by contradicting some of the most frequently used arguments used to prove Gods existence.

Argument 1:

“Morality stems from God, and without God, we cannot be good people”

Religion is frequently help up as a model of moral behaviour. Many holy books contain rules for how people must live in order to reach Heaven or some similar afterlife. Failure to follow those rules often means eternal banishment and punishment. A person who follows these rules and is “godly” is also presumed to be a moral, upright person, whereas atheists are frequently viewed with suspicion. After all, with no God to tell you how to behave, what’s to stop a person from doing whatever they like? A poll conducted by Canadian psychologists even placed atheists as more untrustworthy than rapists in the USA and Canada, showing that atheists are among the least trusted people even in North America.

In reality, there’s no evidence that atheists as a group are any more untrustworthy or immoral than any other group. There are dishonest atheists just as there are dishonest Christians and Muslims, and there are atheists who are paragons of good behaviour just like any upstanding religious person.

Religions do seem to incite violence. This does not always imply a direct causal relationship between religion and violence, yet, this is the opposite of what you’d expect if morality really did stem from God.

Religious texts are generally ancient, and they reflect the values of the times when they were written. Over time, our views of what is acceptable shift as our cultures progress, which makes many things found in the Bible or Quran seem outdated and highly problematic.

Consider, for example, the issue of slavery. Although there are some people who still believe that slavery is moral, the vast majority of religious people are unlikely to admit support for the ownership of another person. Nevertheless, the Bible has many references to slavery, carefully detailing the rules for proper slave ownership.

For example, in the Old Testament, Leviticus 25:44-46 explains that you can take slaves from neighbouring nations but not enslave your own people: “Your male and female slaves are to come from nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.”

Slavery isn’t the only questionable practice condoned in the Bible. The death penalty was also wielded quite liberally in biblical times, and death was a popular punishment for sins in the Old Testament, including violations such as adultery (Leviticus 20:10), homosexuality (Deuteronomy 22:13-21), breaking the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14-15) and more.

In Islamic teaching, it’s made quite clear that anyone who turns away from Islam should be put to death. Within some of the most trusted and authoritative Hadith collections in Islam, which is the main source of Islamic laws and ethics, Prophet Muhammad is quoted as calling for the death penalty against apostates,

‘The Prophet said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qis-as for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam and leaves the Muslims.”’

Many religious critics are quick to jump to the defence of their given holy book by insisting that passages like these are taken out of context. Although it is interesting to note that curiously, many believers do not demand more context when mentioning verses describing love, charity or any other positive aspect of their scripture; verses are only viewed as being out of context when the content is unflattering for believers.

Argument 2

"Science cannot explain the complexity and order of life; God must have designed it to be this way."

Arguably the earliest function of religion was to explain natural phenomena that primitive man could not otherwise understand. Lightning storms and volcanoes, for example, are natural forces that were once attributed to deities. Now that scientific progress has made it clear how and why many of these things occur, a God is no longer required to explain them.

The same is true for many other natural processes, and as the scientific method manages to come up with more models with better explanatory and predicative capabilities for such phenomenon, supernatural explanations prove themselves more inadequate, to say the least. Even though there are things in the world that we don’t yet understand and may never truly understand, there’s no reason to simply make up an explanation. In effect, belief in God is not really an answer; it’s simply a way of saying, “I don’t know.” Yet, the existence of deities raises more questions than it solves.

In 1802, philosopher William Paley introduced “The Teleological Argument” in his book “Natural Theology” In it, he argues that the universe must have been designed by an intelligent creator because it is too complex to have arisen by chance. To illustrate this, he makes an analogy to a watch: if you’re walking on the beach and find a watch, you know from its complexity that a watchmaker must have created it. It would be absurd to think that the watch could have sprung up spontaneously. By his logic, complexity implies design.

Since then, many scientists and philosophers have tackled this issue and have shown that complex systems can arise without a designer. Evolution by natural selection is one such system. A mathematician, John Conway, created a model, called: “{The} Game of Life”. The game shows how complexity can arise from a few simple cells following basic mathematical rules. In the game, a player establishes an initial pattern of “cells,” then sets them loose to multiply and die according to basic mathematical calculations. For populated spaces:

  • If a cell has one or fewer neighbors, it will die.

  • If a cell has four or more neighbors, it will die.

  • Cells with two or three neghbors will survive.

    For empty spaces:

  • Cells with three neighbors become populated.

Argument 3

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

This is called the Ontological argument (OA) and it is a more advanced argument for the existence of God.

The OA assumes what it wants to prove. It posits the simple ability to think of something perfect directly proves the existence of this perfect being. Thinking about something cannot prove that thing's existence.

I’ve never understood the supposed difficulty in refuting the OA for god’s existence. Apart from the fact that it’s an argument from logic and reason alone, rather than from any actual verifiable evidence – which should rule it out as an argument to be considered seriously anyway in my view – it never seemed to make any sense.

If God exists only as an idea in the mind, then all this means is that we can imagine something that is greater than the idea of God in the mind – not greater than a God who actually exists. The argument relies entirely on equivocation - the misleading use of a term that has more than one meaning, while glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time. The argument relies on there being two meanings of the word “God,” and it slips between these definitions as it suits him. What are these two meanings of the word “God”? They are a god who exists in reality and a god who exists only in the mind.

If you look at specific words in general you will notice that your version of the OA contains a lot of "ifs" you have stated that because there is a possibility that a 'maximally great' exists and because there is a possibility that a 'maximally great' being exists in the actual world this means that a maximally great being exists. Once the OA is deduced it makes less sense and the argument fails.

May I remind my opponent that there is no way to prove or disprove God so they should bear this in mind when refutting my argument. Just because there is a possibility that God exists it does not mean that God exists.

My opponents role in this debate is not to show that God is a possibility. Their role is to prove that God exists. There is a possibility that I am a robot plotting to take over the world with my army of robots. This is unlikely but it is a possibility - just like the existence of God.


The Columbia History of Western Philosophy by Richard Popkin

Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity by William Paley and Matthew Eddy

Mathematical Games " The Fantastic Combinations of John Conway"s New Solitaire Game Life by Martin Gardner

Do you believe in Atheists? Distrust Is central to Anti Atheist Prejudice by Will Gervais and Ara Norenzayan

The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam by J. Harold Ellens

Religion and Violence from a sociological Perspective

Euthyphro by Plato

Is the foundation of morality natural or supernatural? Craig Harris Debate by Same Harris

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins

**Note** I apologise for all my sources being books but I have always found books more reliable and I have been researching and debating about this topic for years now using a huge collection of books that are extremely good and I highly recommend.


As I mentioned in my acceptance to the argument, that I will argue based on Jesuit believes and personal experience where God is the source of love and not the controlling God in Jew and Islam, now every religion of the three main religions has the rules part and the spiritual and sophisim part
God is different from religion, religion is a set of rules that control the behaviour of people in order to reach a state where they are accepted to enter the heaven.
This act is contradicting with the pure love, this can be considered conditional love where you need to take certain actions in order to be loved.
God on the opposite is unconditional love, in jesuit teachings and sophisim God accepts you as you are not as you have to be, God loves every human being and creature 100% either sinner or not. A person needs to accept himself unconditionally, whether sinner or not.By this freeing act, the person can change his bad behaviors by the power of acceptance and not by suppressing his emotions. When religions control people, it creates people with suppressed emotions and intentions.

I am against the idea of having a person who takes teachings from God and deliver it to people, Most prophits claimed that and people followed them and they set their rules for them, while Jesus did not aproach people with the concept that what he is teaching from God, instead he was teaching as has the autherity and power. This leads me to two points:
1. most prophits were people who wanted to improve their societies and to put regulations for their people to follow. Their claim of receiving these teachings from God helped them to achieve their goals. So, these prophits were like leaders who wanted to lead their people for the better, they did not try to transform society like stopping slavery, they wanted to control and lead.
2. Jesus christ - and here I will discuss the historical figure of a person who had teachings and healing powers regardless of his birth story and the salvation though I believe in them but for the sake of the argument. Jesus christ is a person who was able to heal people and to give them transformational teachings where he accepted people regardless of their sins or sickness. Jesus claimed that he is in unity with God, he could heal by the name of God and he could forgive people. In jesuit teaching God lives in the heart of each person, it means that God is the love inside each person. God is in the love process. God was inside jesus christ heart purely and this gave him such powers.
Let me move to the second argument,
Evolution is a fact, you cant ignore it and any religious person who says it is not their is fooled by fulse believes.
Again, evolution is a fact, and the world was not created in 7 days. The story of creation was taken from old civilizations and were copied in old testiment as the true story. Evolution is one of the core concepts of love. In the core love of God that he gives the freedom for the creature to choose, he respects the creatures will being and their choices and decisions.
God the creator of the universe does not interact with evolution process, God accept their choices. Same as applied to the whole universe.
Final argument, I consider that God exist but God existance happen once a person starts the self awareness process. God exists but you need an awareness openning experience to believe in his existance. Many years ago the world were not aware about the existance of America, but it was there. You cant force a person to believe in America existance at that time, but it was there. You cant see electric current, but it is there.
I can live while ignoring the existance of God, you could now start to defend my argument, but God is an experience of extraordinary love that once you experience, you will believe that he exists. The main problem of religions that they try to prrof God by logic while God is not logical conclusion. I can say the this chair should have been created by a man, then man exist. Is this a proof of human existance? How would you proof the existance of a lion without seeing it. The lion is there, but it will not exist in your mind untill you experience it with photo, video, face to face, etc. But without that we could spend the whole life arguing if the lion exist or not, thats why I tried to describe God to you differently.
Debate Round No. 2


Since this round is not for rebuttals I will continue with my arguments. My opponent should continue their argument in this round and not refute anything said in this round or the previous round until R4.

As clearly stated my position in this debate is a defensive one.

Argument 1

" The laws of logic prove the existence of God"

One relatively new counterargument to atheism is the transcendental argument for God, or TAG, as popularized by Matt Slick of Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM). Although TAG for God as displayed on the CARM website is fairly new, the ideas behind it trace back at least as far as Immanuel Kant. Kant introduces the idea and structure of the transcendental argument using certain logical truths or laws that are universal, unchangeable and absolute.

What TAG actually says

From a philosophical view, there are three logical absolutes:

1) Law of Identity: Something is what it is and isn't what it is not. Something that exists has a specific nature. For example, an apple is that apple, and a rock is that rock. In other words, whatever is, is.
2) Law of Non-contradiction: Two opposing statements cannot both be true. For example, "this is an apple" and "this is a rock" cannot both be true if the object in both statements is referring to the same thing. In other words, nothing can both be and not be.
3) Law of Excluded Middle: A statement cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense. For example, the statement "this is an apple" is either true or false; an object being an apple can't be both true and false at the same time. In other words, everything must either be or not be.

These laws are necessarily absolute. They are always true, and there can be no exceptions. Someone who says, "This rock is an apple," makes no sense, as that statement defies the laws of logic; in order for a discussion to take place, all parties involved must agree that rocks, once defined, are always rocks and adhere to their definitions.

The TAG argument builds on these laws of logic to provide the following "proof" of God:

1) Logical absolutes exist.
2) These laws of logic are conceptual in nature, not physical. They do not exist anywhere in the physical world.
3) Because these absolutes are conceptual, they must have been conceived in a mind.
4) However, these laws are perfect and absolute. Human minds are not perfect or absolute.
5) Logical absolutes are true everywhere are not dependent on human minds.
6) Therefore, these laws of logic must exist in a perfect, absolute, transcendental mind.
7) That mind is called God.

Logical absolutes must be the product of a mind, and thses laws are absolute, there must be an absolute mind behind them with that mind being God. In order for a logical proof to work, two conditions must be met: The premises must be true, and the structure must support the premises to their logical conclusion. Structurally, the argument is logically sound; if every premise were true, then the outcome would also be true. However, as we shall see, the premises are not true, which invalidates the argument entirely.

The Fallacy Of Equivocation

The problem with the TAG is that the laws of logic are descriptive, not prescriptive. The laws are simply a desription of things we know to be true. The universe does not conform to logical absolutes because someone thought them up and is holding reality to that standard. These absolutes exist purely to describe patterns that we have observed as true in reality. To understand the difference between a desriptive and prescriptive law, consider this example: Gravity is a desriptive law. Isaac Newton didn't create gravity. It existed before he identified it and would have continued existing regardless of whether he had ever given it a name. The laws of gravity are simply observations made by scientists that explain natural processes. The traffic speed limit is a presriptive law. It was created and enforced by people, and it's meaningless without such enforcement. If no one came up with a speeding limit or held people accountable for speeding, speed limits would cease to exist. In the same way, the laws of logic are desriptive. No one made them up or wrote them in a handbook somewhere for them to exist. They were simply observed as always being true (rocks are always rocks because if a rock were anything else, it would cease to be a rock). Because the laws of logic are not prescriptive, they do not require the mind of a deity or any other mind to exist. Human minds can identify them and put them into words, but the phenomena these laws refer to would continue to exist regardless of whether a deity or anyone else thought about them.

Proponents of TAG conflate the description of logical laws with the natural phenomena they refer to. Equating an object with its desription is like equating a phtograph of a car with the real thing; although the photograph accurately depicts an image of the car, you cannot apply the qualities of the photo in accurately describing the real car. Otherwise, you might erroneously extrapolate (incorrectly come to the conclusion that) cars are flat and fit in the palm of your hand. The same is true for the laws of logic . The statement "A=A" is a conceptual description of a physical property. The statement itself requires a mind to describe it. However, the physical property would remain true, with or without a mind to conceive it. What this means is that these desriptions themselves are what is purely conceptual. But the laws they desribe are not coneptual. What these laws refer to is the consistency of existence, which exists whether or not they're being described or identified by a mind. A rock is always a rock because it exists in reality. If there were no mind to observe the rock, it would still be a rock. Minds are necessary only to describe that phenomenon, not to make it true. The fallacy of equivocation occurs because the TAG argument uses logical absolutes in more than one sense. Logical absolutes, as described in step one of the TAG argument above, are physical underpinnings of the universe; in step two, they are the descriptions of those laws. Logical absolutes do exist. However, these laws are not conceptual in nature. We do not need any minds for them to exist. We only need minds to observe, understand and express these laws. Our perceptions of these laws are by no means perfect, unchanging or absolute.

If the premises of TAG were sound, the argument still leaves much to be desired as evidence of the existence of God. If you were to accept the premise that universal concepts require a universal mind to think of them, there is nothing to suggest what that mind might be like. In other words, the TAG mind behind the rules of logic would not necessarily need to have any of the qualities commonly associated with deities, including benevolence, omnipotence, a role in the creation of the universe and a source of morality. There is nothing in the TAG to suggest that the hypothetical mind behind the rules of logic was capable of or responsible for anything other than conceiving of those laws. As such, it would fail to actually prove anything about the existence of deities or provide convincing reason to worship or attempt to create personal relationships with God.

Argument 2

"There is no evidence that God doesn't exist"

When confronted with criticism, theists will pull out this argument in an attempt to shift the burden of proof toward the critic. Although this tactic can feel very clever, it opens a door to absurdity. This argument seems to suggest that we believe in everything, even things we have yet to think about, until that belief is proven false. That's simply not a logical way to perceive reality. If the criteria for something being accepted as true was based purely on there being no evidence against it, an endless number of hypothetical objects could suddenly become "real." This has been the source of numerous playful thought experiments by skeptics around the world:

- The flying spaghetti monster, who created the earth with his noodly appendage.

- The dragon in Carl Sagan's garage, a thought experiment he describes in The Demon Haunted World. The dragon is invisible, floats in the air, generates no heat and is incorporeal, thus evading all forms of sensory detection.

- Russell's Teapot, a hypothetical teapot that you cannot prove isn't orbiting the sun.

All of these examples were designed in good fun. B.Russell does not actually believe that there is a teapot orbiting the sun. However, there is no way to prove that these claims aren't true, which demonstrates the total absurdity of this line of thinking. Carl Sagan's invisible dragon argument shows the futility of ad hoc arguments in explaining reality. An ad hoc argument is one that makes excuses to rationalize away the valid criticisms of an argument without any evidence to support it. When the claimant desperately wants something to be true, she'll often employ an ad hoc argument to counter any arguments to her claim.

The dragon in Carl Sagan's hypothetical garage cannot be seen because it's invisible. A skeptic might press for evidence. But its footprints cannot be observed because it hovers in the air, and the dragon's invisible fire is heatless. A rationalization can be formed to explain the absence of any form of evidence. These rationalizations don't make the original claim true. Indeed, it's easiest to make ad hoc arguments about things that don't really exist because that frees you up to create increasingly fanciful arguments.
When applied to theism, this ad hoc reasoning can be seen in the increasingly vague descriptions of God. As theists may say: God cannot be comprehended or described. This falls under the ad hoc fallacy. Such rationalizations make God so vague that it becomes impossible to refute the idea, but they get the claimant nowhere closer to proving his claim. Disbelief is not the same as belief in something else.

Sources in the comments due to character limit.


ahalasa forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent has broken the rules of this debate by forfeiting.

"Failure to abide by the rules will result in the opposite side receiving all points."



ahalasa forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


All points to con. Pro has broken the rules of the debate.


ahalasa forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Balacafa 3 years ago
Sources for R3:

The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God by Matt Slick.

The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God by David Walford and Immanuel Kant.

Equivocation by Bo Bennett.

About by Bobby Henderson

The Invisible Pink Unicorn by Alex Ashman

The Dragon in My Garage by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan

Is there a God? [1952] by Bertrand Russell

Ad Hoc Rescue by Bo Bennett

Dictionary of Gods and Goddesses by Michael Jordon
Posted by ahalasa 3 years ago
Please read my arhument. There is one idea I want to add. You cant proof or disproof the existance of something by logic, because the existamce of creatures or things is prooved by sense, I see this creature then it exists. This is one of the biggest mistakes in philosophy.
Posted by ahalasa 3 years ago
Let us see where the discussion will lead us.
Posted by Balacafa 3 years ago
I understand that. Debating is a hobby, I do not intend to completely disprove God because that would be a major discovory.
Posted by Longline 3 years ago
if we are talking about the Christian God. then I would like to say. this debate will not end well for either side.

you see. I do believe that we have a God. in fact I believe we must have a God. But I can not prove that God exist. I can only reason to a certain extend. Reason with clear logical understanding. of course I will indeed use the Bible. sense it has a major rout in my believe. but not tide entirely on it.

One reason why I cannot prove that god exist. because a debate is always a debate. Wisdom is given very little credit when you are debating any subject.
I personally don't think this should be debated on. but experience. we all have experience that lead to us believing what we believe. or not believing what we don't.

I think if you want to know the truth of. if God exist or not, debating it will means you already Know for a fact that he does not exist. because that is the purpose of debating, for one person to hold a perspective and by all means must try to win over the over all reasoning of the other party.

Debating the existence of God Jehovah will not bring any new knowledge to both debaters, because they are not the first or the last.

Most of us are relying on time, or death to know the truth. But there is another way that you can get the truth. it's not by debating I will tell you that.
Posted by Balacafa 3 years ago
That's okay, your round 1 argument was fine.
Posted by ahalasa 3 years ago
I accept and sorry for not typing it there.
Posted by Balacafa 3 years ago
For round 1 just type: I accept.
Posted by Balacafa 3 years ago
I have challenged you. You can now accept. There has also been an addition to the definition of God.
Posted by Balacafa 3 years ago
Yeah, I'll change that in a second.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: The rules of the debate are straightforward, and Pro failed to adhere to them.
Vote Placed by n7 3 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF