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
Toffee 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: 12/2/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 385 times Debate No: 105479
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Hi there,I firmly believe and it is backed up by many logical arguments one of which is extremely simple. If you believe that a single object cannot just pop into existence then how on earth can you believe that the universe just appeared into existence, it makes no sense! There has to be some greater external force controlling this which is, God.

Give me a challenge, bring it on.

King Toffee


Of course, there are many more reasons for my nonbelief, but I'l only counter Pro's claims. According to Hume, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and as the person making the positive claim, it is Pro's burden of proof to prove God's exists. If he fails to do so, we have no reason to believe.

According to King Toffee, a universe can't appear into existence out of nothing and therefore there must be some greater force controlling the process which is God. There are several problems with this line of logic.

Of course, there are in fact objects that pop into existence out of nothing. In quantum physics, under certain conditions, virtual particles can pop in and out of existence in a vacuum. Nonetheless, even if this wasn't true, Toffee's argument still is illogical. His argument is under the presumption that there was nothing prior to the Big Bang. Of course our cosmos was created by the Big Bang, but the overall universe could have existed beforehand. How do we know that there anything isn't beyond our own universe? If that's the case, then those could very well be uncaused.

At first glance, this seems to be a good answer to the question why is there something rather than nothing. But if one asks that and answers God, it would be fallacious not to ask a corollary question. Why is there God rather than nothing? Isn't God something? If he is, then why wouldn't he have a cause? According to the principle of causality, everything has a cause. Why would this not be the case for God? Wouldn't it be special pleading to give God the description of the uncaused cause without evidence for this?

Either way, what evidence is there that this is, in fact, a deity, and specifically yours. Even if all the premises of pro's argument was true, this doesn't mean that the conclusion is God. At most, without additional argument, Tofee's argument only shows how there is a greater external force. Of course, there are much more potential external forces than just God. Why not Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Krishna, Thor, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Debate Round No. 1


First of all I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, after all ,it's going to be a tough journey for him.

However I would like to reply to the refutations of my opponent. My opponent mentioned how in quantum physics under certain conditions virtual particles can pop in and out of existence in a vacuum, however he is missing the fact that humans cannot create a perfect vacuum with no absolutely no matter, even in space there are a few atoms per cubic metre on average, so therefore that refutation is invalid because it does not prove how something can just appear from absolutely nothing as in the Big Bang.

However he does go on to say how even if this was not true then my argument is still illogical because I am under the presumption that there was nothing prior to the Big Bang. My belief that prior to the Big Bang there was nothing but God, and I assume that my opponent believes in the Big Bang as he mentioned how our cosmos were created by the Big Bang, and if he does believe in it then he should know that the Big Bang theory suggests how the entire universe began not just our cosmos. Then is therefore not uncaused.

My opponent then went on to ask a few general questions as to question the existence of God, for my opponents satisfaction I will each one. 'Why is there God rather than nothing?', well dependant on which monotheistic religion someone is part of they will have a different answer to that, as that is a philosophical question tackling the purpose of God rather than God's existence.'Isn't God something?', Yes. 'If he is, then why wouldn't he have a cause?' , like I mentioned earlier it depends on your monotheistic religious beliefs, however sometimes it cannot be completely clear, but we should obey God nevertheless, because after all he has created us. 'According to the principle of causality, everything has a cause.Why would this not be the case for God? ' , because if God had a creator it would go on for an infinite loop and that would be illogical, let me explain. If A created B, what created A? It must be C, then if C created A, what created C? As you can see this would go on forever, that is why there is one God who as existed forever. 'Wouldn't it be special pleading to give God the description of the uncaused cause without evidence for this?', well I just proved this.

My opponents final argument was one of severe unintelligence, because Allah is the Arabic word for God, so they are both the same, Vishnu is also known to be the reincarnation of Brahman who is the Ultimate reality or God. The same goes for Krishna. However Zeus, Thor and the Flying Spaghetti monster are completely illogical and are not God-like at all they have completely different attributes.

I would like to finish off on the fact that humans are designed so intricately, that our body is amazing. So I would like to pose the question to my opponent that how have been designed so perfectly if there is no God?


King Toffee


It was once said by the great skeptic David Hume that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. and sadly my opponent fails to live up to this standard. I will respond to my opponents supposed "refutations."

These quantum fluctuations via virtual particles appear out of nowhere. A pure vacuum is, in fact, impossible, yet in a new perfect vacuum things appear in and out of existence at a whim.

My opponent completely fails to understand my argument about the predecessor to the Big Bang. The Big Bang, of course, started off our present cosmos, but how do we know there was no cosmos before that. The Big Crunch model postulates that the universe goes through infinite Big Bangs and Big Crunches throughout time. Multiple theories have been worked out for this, such as the Teinhardt–Turok model and Baum–Frampton model. There isn't just the possibility of God existing before our universe, there is a plethora of other options.

Occam's Razor says that we shouldn't multiply entities beyond necessity. Of course, we very well know the universe exists. We don't have the same level of knowledge about god, otherwise, we wouldn't be having this argument. Just because God could be uncaused, doesn't mean he in fact is. The possibility does not prove plausibility. There could be, say 50, Gods between the universe between an ultimate uncaused God. The God that made our universe could be caused by another, and another, and another after that, yet still there would be an ultimate uncaused cause but it wouldn't be Toffee's God. Just because God supposedly put us into this world does not mean we should obey him. By the same logic you should obey abusive parents just because of the fact that they brought you into this world.

Only a stupid ignoramus would actually think that Allah and God mean the same. If you denounced the Quran and espoused that Allah is a trinity deity who forgives sins in the country of Pakistan, you would be beheaded. There is in fact a difference between the two, yet that was beyond the point. Even if his argument proves the universe had some sort of cause, Toffee is in a sticky situation and has all of his work still ahead of him. The oft cited teleological argument perpetuated by my opponent too has this problem; which god does it prove. Allah, Vishnu, Thor, God, etc. They all could very well be the external force, as my opponent puts it, to the universe. Nonetheless, there could be a great many causes, and one can not dismiss them merely by saying they're illogical and not god like even though they're gods in their own right. Without additional argument for one god, or argument against all others, it's impossible to tell. At most, the argument proves there is an external force.

In rough conclusion, even if all the premises of pro's argument were true, it doesn't draw back to the assumed conclusion. In other words, it is a broken compass argument. Pro postulates enities beyond pure necessity and applies special pleading to "prove" that God is somehow uncaused. Arguabluy, his argument is so ridden with fallacies that it could prove anything, and by extension proves nothing.

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
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 4 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.

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