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

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
PowerPikachu21 has forfeited round #3.
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: 11/17/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 2,292 times Debate No: 96913
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (34)
Votes (0)




Alright. It's time to announce the Contender, chosen by me: I'll debate lannan13, as I'm intrigued of their arguments.


1) Under lannan13's request, the definition of God will be "The mind that grounds reality". Though I want them to expand on this definition.

2) The Burden of Proof is shared. I will have to show that God can't possibly exist. The Contender will have to make it seem plausible for God to exist.

3) No forfeiting or running out of time. You get all 72 hours to post.

4) 1st round is acceptance only. That might've been a problem in some earlier debates.

5) If I feel like the definition creates an unfair advantage to my opponent, I will say so.

Good luck, and I'm looking forward to a fair debate.


I accept and wish my opponent good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


I've never really heard God described as grounding reality. And, honestly, I'm not sure what's exactly being argued. Definitions are supposed to tell us about what is being defined. I'm probably missing something, but "The mind that grounds reality" is kind of vague. Is God ruling reality? Is God keeping reality real? Did he make reality? I'll argue against each of these 3 assumptions.

Ruling Reality; He can't just rule reality, since it would have to exist first.

Keeping Reality Real; Well, it would have had to exist first.

Making Reality; Is there really any reason to believe this? There is a counter argument to this, actually.

God can't have made reality, since there would've been a problem. Time is eternal; it always has existed. There can be time without matter, but not matter without time. Assuming God created the Universe, it was at a specific point in time. But what about the time before the creation? Would we ever actually exist had we been created at a point in endless time?

I'll leave it at that for now. I'll let lannan13 take it from here.


I would like to thank my opponent for allowing me to debate this. With this debate round being the Constructive, I shall only be focusing on my case in this round and begin my rebuttals in the next.

Contention 1: Teleology

St. Thomas Aquinas's theory on Teleologic which is the ultimate causes of objects or actions in relation to their ends. This is from the 5th of Thomas Aquinas's theories explaining the existence of God. His theory is below.

1. If teleology exists, then an ordering intellect exists.

2. Teleology exists.

3. Therefore, an ordering intellect exists.

First, teleos exists on the basis that there must be intention which exists in the mind. If teleology truly exists then there must be intellect for it to be grounded to in the end. Edward Feser who states, "Where goal-directness is associated with consciousness, as it is in us, there is no mystery. A builder builds a house, and he is able to do so because the form of the house exists in his intellect because it is instantiated in a concrete particular object. And of course, the materials that will take on that form also exist already, waiting to take it on." [1]

Does teleology exist? Obvious, does the heart beat and pump blood because it just happens? No, it has a valid purpose of pumping blood to keep you alive. Without teleology, there would be no purpose. There is an everyday occurrence of this. How else are we to say that a carbonator needs replaced if it does not have a purpose? When we observe other things that are inorganic like the Nitrogen and Water Cycle we can see that they too have purpose, thus teleological by nature. [2]

We can see that since all teleology must be grounded to a single being in the universe. It is obvious that this high being has nothing else higher than it and is thus the greatest being in the universe which it would make sense to call this said being God.

6. Everything that had a beginning in time has a cause.

7. The universe had a beginning in time.

8. Therefore the universe had a cause.

9. The only thing that could have caused the universe is god.

10. Therefore, god exists. [3]

For the 6th premise we have already found that is true, so let's move on to the next premise.

Now for the 7th premise Ross writes this in support.

"By definition, time is that dimension in which cause-and-effect phenomena take place. No time, no cause and effect. If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and preexistent to the time dimension of the cosmos.

This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who god is and who or what god isn't. It tells us that the Creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe." [4]

Here we can see that there must be an entity controlling time and of which came before time. The entirety of everything had another dimension and this God was in another dimension and created the universe and all the laws of physics that we are still yet to even begin to comprehend.

He later to go on to further back this up by providing Biblical verses and stating that it must be that God has another time dimension and this is one of the reasons that we do not have concrete proof of him yet as we have yet to be able to travel in other dimensions which I'll get into in my next contention. [4]

C2: Monistic idealism.

P1 Mind is mental
P2 Nothing mental can interact with what is non-mental
C1 Nothing mind interacts with is non-mental
P3 Mind interacts with reality
C2 Reality is mental

P1: Mind is mental.

P1: IF mind is matter, THEN solipsism is impossible (exists in no possible worlds).
P2: Solipsism is possible (does exist in some possible world).
C: Mind is not matter.

Metaphysical Solipsism shows that all exists within our own minds. Though we may think there is a world out there it is all actually in our minds. [5] Thus a world has to exist within our own minds and there are several reasons why this is completely true. It makes perfect sense since it isn't prima facie impossible and thus must be accepted as a solid fact, not to mention that it is perfectably reasonable and a sound argement. If we can see that the mind was matter, then it would be impossible to exist appart from matter itself. Things that are Metaphysically impossible are not even imaginable. Can you imagine a Square Hexigon? No, such a thing is perposterous. We can thus see that Metaphysical solipsism is consitstant with Metaphysically possible. Here we have to apply the Indentity of Indiscernibles.

F(FxFy) → x=y.

This is reflected by showing these things are distinguished by some differential, but in the case of, let's say clones for the sake of arguing, is just a replication of it's own molecules. This is centered on the basis that all things have an individualistic characteristic and in the case of God it is the existance of it's own mind and it's consciencousness that shows this. I shall give an example bellow.

There are 3 Sphere, Sphere A, B, and C
Each have the same qualities.
Each of these Spheres exist in world 1.
Sphere A exists in World 2, but Sphere B and C cannot due to their likeness characteristics. [6]

We can see that this is a logically coherrant case and thus is sound. We can also see that due to the theory of Truely Large Numbers that there is a great chance that this world is that of a Solipsism one as many studies have shown. (but that's for another debate)

P2: Seperate Substances cannot interact

Substance Dualism
This is best cleverly sumed up by the phrase "Mind over Matter" where they argue that there's escentially two distinct things: Mind and Matter. [7] Though the key question here is if the mind is seperate from matter than how does the mind and the brain interact? In order for the consciousness and matter to interact there would have to be some sort of interaction. (See image bellow) The trap here is that since there is a linkage here we can see that there cannot be two seperate things since they would have to be interlinked. Thus the theory here is false.

Property Dualism
So you may concede to the above dualism, but then you might say, alrighty, if that is true then the mind must be a property of the brain. Though if this was true then it would lead to epiphenomenalism and that there would be no free will since everything that we do would have been created by some reaction in the Physical aspect.

This leads to an interesting contradiction of itself. Say I weigh 180 lbs (not my actual weight, but it's an example), the property of me would be 180 lbs. Now tell me, have you ever gone outside or to the zoo and seen 180lbs? No something that weighs that, but the 180 lbs by itself? Thus we can blatently see that it is an abstract that exists only as a property. It can only exist as a property of something else.

If we remember my Solipsism argument from earlier we can see the mind can exist by itself and thus it cannot be a property like the 180 lbs as the mind isn't a property thus it wouldn't be consevable much like the 180 lbs.

P3: Mind interacts with reality.

This almost seems like it's the most obvious here I get hit in the head with a foul ball at a baseball game. Outside of the fact that I would probably have been KO'd we can see that the mind affects what I feel. I would feel a massive amount of pain and if it was great enough then I would lose consciousness and the mind would go dormant to protect itself and me as a person.

Thus the reality is mental and God has no choice but to exist.

1. Edward Feser, "Teleology: A Shopper's Guide," Philosophia Christi 12 (2010): 157
2. David S. Oderberg, "Teleology: Inorganic and Organic," in A.M. Gonz"lez (ed.), Contemporary Perspectives on Natural Law(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008): 259-79
3. (Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos (Colorado Springs: Navpress, 1995), p. 14.)
4. ( Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, p. 76.)
5. (

6. Weatherson, B., 2008, "Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Properties", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
7. (
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 2 years ago
DDO didn't want to cooperate with me, and made an error.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 2 years ago
Is your argument seriously that big? I'll go ahead and make the character limit 10,000. Finish up your work, then accept the debate. (I do notice that every time I edit the debate, the acceptance clock resets to 7 days)
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
Could you also bump the limit up to 10k.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 2 years ago
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
Can you bump the time up to 72 hours?
Posted by PowerPikachu21 2 years ago
I'm going to debate this with lannan13, as I wonder what his version of God is, exactly. And, again, I'm sorry for making impossible criteria, and stating what I put. Though the criteria was clearly impossible. I'm not sure what dsjpk5 was talking about.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
I can accept here in a few days once my schedule clears up.
Posted by datguy2 2 years ago
god exists dont know why people dont get this. proof of him.
Posted by canis 2 years ago
If a god does exist or not does not matter..That is why someone can ask the question..And the answer is without any matter....
Posted by rockerlinda15 2 years ago
God exists. The Bible is The Word of our Lord.
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.