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

Does a 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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/25/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,117 times Debate No: 118709
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)




As an atheist i have seen insufficient evidence for a God. Is there any?


I'll take this section to mention that I am playing the devil's advocate role.

devil's advocate
  1. a person who expresses a contentious opinion in order to provoke debate or test the strength of the opposing arguments.
I would like to have a philosophical debate on it. If not then I'll try my best to prove it.

Philosophical side (if you choose to): How do we exist?
Can we find purpose without God?
What happens when we die?

Debate Round No. 1


How do we exist?
We exist due to evolution. Evolution is a proven fact.

Can we find purpose without God?
Why do we need a God to have purpose in our lives? And why should there be a purpose to life? The purpose to life is a question one should ask themselves. Worshiping a God can be a purpose to life, But living life to the fullest is also a purpose to life. Be good to each other. A God is not needed.

What happens when we die?
It ends. There is no evidence to believe otherwise. Unless evidence of an afterlife or other explanation based on evidence what will happen after you die, I remain unconvinced there is anything else.


"We exist due to evolution. Evolution is a proven fact"

What started our evolution?

"Why do we need a God to have purpose in our lives? And why should there be a purpose to life? The purpose to life is a question one should ask themselves. Worshiping a God can be a purpose to life, But living life to the fullest is also a purpose to life. Be good to each other. A God is not needed. "

Without an objective purpose to life anything can have purpose. To know someone who is fixed on their purpose for their entire lifespan would be really rare. Purpose 200 years ago is different from now. With God we might find objective purpose. Finding objective purpose would allow all humans to be aware of their purpose and do not spend time searching for it instead to fulfill it.

"What happens when we die? "

Chemicals like DMT have given people an out of body experience. It is a hallucination but the experience from most accounts say it feels familiar but nothing that they have ever seen. Saying we have researched it rigorously to give a conclusion whether or not it can be trusted would be a lie. Until we tested for DMT then I would be satisfied that in the confides of our reality there is no God.

DMT video: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=LtT6Xkk-kzk

Debate Round No. 2


Nice rebuttal.
I do have to admit that I'm from the Netherlands and English isn't my first language, So therefore I'm not able to give a great rebuttal :).

What started evolution?
I see where you're going here. When I answer that question, Your next question will be. . . What started that and so on and so forth.
Therefore I'm skipping to the end and say. . . I don't know. This is a perfect answer. An answer to search to answer that question and not ending it on "God did it". If you claim God did it, That's an assertion which needs to be demonstrated, Which up until now hasn't been done. If it has, Then the question "Does a god exist" would be answered.

Purpose in life can change. In you first years the purpose is to learn as much as you can and it is kinda forced on you
In your teens your purpose can be graduating high school or university or whatever.
Later your purpose can be looking for a great job that will satisfy your needs.
Later your purpose can be settle down and have kids and take care of them the best you can or maybe travel or whatever.
God can be your purpose in life, But you can have a good life without God.

What happens when we die?
Your answer has nothing to do with what actually happens. You say things like DMT and " given people an out of body experience".
I say it gives an experience.
The out of body has to be defined. If I take that literally, It means that your soul (if there even is one) will exit your body and you will see the world around you from another perspective and you can see yourself as a person like looking in the mirror.
That can easily be tested.
Enforce an out of body experience and just draw a picture and show it in the air. When the person comes out of the experience, Ask him what drawing he saw. If he got it right, Still it doesn't prove anything of course.
One hit doesn't mean anything. This has to be investigated how he got it right and will he get it right again the second and third and fourth time.

To get back at number 1 again:
Can you demonstrate a god exist?
Just to be clear : An atheist isn't claiming there is no god. An atheist simply rejects the theistic claim " there is a god" because of a lack of evidence.


"What do you mean exactly with when or if we prove existence of God then free will would be less of a burden? Do you think that if you have seen a God or know he exists, That you don"t have free will anymore? I could be wrong by reading your sentence ;) (Dutch), But if that"s the case then that is incorrect. The devil was one of God"s angels. Which means he definitely knows God and all of his powers, But is still able to reject him. Therefore free will can exist when you have the knowledge that God exist"

When or if we prove the existence of God the free will we do have would be less of a burden. We don't actually have free will because we can't possibly know all the choices we can make. We are limited to the choices we can make which is why how much of our will might be free we won't have all the possibilities to choose from. If we can scientifically prove it and it generates the same results like if you pray this way and at this time then we should be following that God. As far as I know prayers are not consistent which is why if it was consistent with a new religion then I choose to believe that would be the right religion (if not biased only representing the facts). That is an assumption and wishful thinking.

(Restrictions of God logically) God would either be evil or omniscience. Either he allows rapist to act up on their own free will and commit crimes or he knows what you are going to do. He can't be both because if I had a choice between an apple and orange. God would take the guess that I would pick the apple. If I had free will then I should be able to pick up the orange. By picking up the orange God is not all knowing. If I cannot pick up the orange and forced to pick up the apple then he is omniscience. Either he allows the lack of free will people have to make other people suffer who is forcing people to do the wrong thing. There are two videos below that better explains it then I did. I don't think we have free will. We have limited amount of choices from our limited perception.

I'll drop DMT.

Question to further the discussion (replacing DMT):

Why do you think maths works so well in finding answers?

(both youtube videos)
An All Knowing God versus Free Will: The Greatest Religious Contradiction

How God Favors Evil
Debate Round No. 3


How do I explain consciousness?
Oh wow. . . A question the great minds of our tome (like Richard Dawkins) have no answer to and me as a noob should answer that. Since the great minds have no idea yet, My answer would also be "I don"t know"

Personally my guess would be the Big Bang theory seems most plausible to me. But I don"t know is the better answer ;).

What do you mean exactly with when or if we prove existence of God then free will would be less of a burden? Do you think that if you have seen a God or know he exists, That you don"t have free will anymore? I could be wrong by reading your sentence ;) (Dutch), But if that"s the case then that is incorrect. The devil was one of God"s angels. Which means he definitely knows God and all of his powers, But is still able to reject him. Therefore free will can exist when you have the knowledge that God exist

And then the DMT issue again :). Yes it"s a shame that the government won"t spend funding on DMT. I would have loved the high I guess ;). It is also a shame that the government isn"t putting any resources on a claim that has been made that somewhere in North America the horns of unicorns had fallen off and is laying somewhere on the ground.

My point is that if there are no horns found (in your case everyone on DMT has the same experience meaning it"s the brain), Then there"s nothing supernatural there
If they do find horns (in your case different results on DMT) this still doesn"t say anything how these horns came there and if they were in fact from unicorns (in your case if everyone had a different result on DMT, This doesn"t prove an out of body experience)

You can investigate all kinds of causes. . . But if you claim that it is worth looking into because it maybe can lead to a heaven. . . We should first prove the existence of a heaven. . . Or in my case. . . A unicorn


"What do you mean exactly with when or if we prove existence of God then free will would be less of a burden? Do you think that if you have seen a God or know he exists, That you don"t have free will anymore? I could be wrong by reading your sentence ;) (Dutch), But if that"s the case then that is incorrect. The devil was one of God"s angels. Which means he definitely knows God and all of his powers, But is still able to reject him. Therefore free will can exist when you have the knowledge that God exist"

free will
    1. the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

We do not actually have free will. Only the ability, Constraint by our own perception, To think differently with the information we currently have. Even with murderers they also do not have free will. They were constrained to murdering someone. A scenario: B said something about A's mom. A, Filled with anger, Thinks he has to defend his mothers honour by killing him. B is dead. 99% of the time this scenario would happen if it was possible to measure the same event more then once. The reason why is that A is still restricted to how he was brought up and how he thinks (product of his environment). To him murder is the only way to bring justice whereas to a more reasonable person he would brush it off and think it is not worth my time disputing someone who goes as low as Ad Hominems of another person who was not part of the discussion. Everyone is a product of their environment. If we were able to record what happens in each person life. We would find something like why Trump is president. We can see a cause and effect. I am guessing Hillary's emails being released made Trump elected. I don't know of a case without a cause and effect and the effect happening any other way. If we did have free will we would not be constrained by our genes from our parents which determines what actions you will take in your life. The more data we have on someone's DNA and the actions they take the easier it is to predict what they are going to do next. I think there can be argument that God worshiping people think differently from non-God worshiping people. If you want to look at a more broad example liberals would be NGW and conservatives would be GW. Yes there are rare cases but like minded people tend to think alike.

I am thinking of the God which allows people to bad and good. The one that is all-knowing but does do nothing. The other God would be useless if he cannot control us. If he allowed us to have free will then he openly allows us to not worship him or whatever he wants us to do which I don't believe a God could want. There is a video on the comment section by backwardseden. It is the first asterisk for the logically it cannot both be the case and the third asterisk where God is evil and also cannot be omnipotent and humans have free will.

I'll drop the DMT argument.

Taking over the DMT argument: Why do you think maths works so well in finding answers?

(Did try to upload this earlier but I think DDO must've stopped it from uploading because of a link but it did increase the time I had)

Debate Round No. 4


ganky6 forfeited this round.


Gave no reason why God exists that con could not answer sufficiently.

ganky6 won.

Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
Mind guessing is consciousness. For me if I was capable of creating A. I, I would label that as human error if something does not go plan and if it can't be explained another way. There was an A. I called AlphaZero which is the best chess player. It knew how to win in 4 hours. With our mind we are not as effective at keeping true to our subjective purpose instead we wander off and do something else. The consciousness does makes us happy and ultimately the biggest weakness to humans. Happiness does not make us effective at doing our job instead it is a distraction. Feelings consume us and distract from logic and rationality. Best example would be the Ford and Brett case. One side was you have to believe her and the other was innocent until proven guilty. Generalising but I think catered to the popular viewpoint on each side.

Everything has a cause and effect. Even if I don't believe in free will illegal acts should still be punished. It is unfair but rules are rules and I highly doubt someone is born a murderer. It is more like the circumstances gave him murder as the best option. If we improve circumstances like poverty then I highly doubt it would be an issue. If the environment he lived in was positive then it is doubtful the person would act so negative if he wasn't mentally ill. Which there are treatments for.

Even though he thought murder was the best option I still think you should punish him. He knew full well what he was doing was illegal and he chose to do it. It is really unlikely someone knows murder is illegal. If it was self-defence the justice system covers that without enough evidence. Their actions are theirs. They are just weighed down by a mix of their environment, Brain and genes. It is unfair but life is unfair.

I want to show how I found this out but cannot put it in a way that is easily digestible. Watch if you want. Didn't copy link because DDO acts weirdly to them.

Sam Harris on Free Will (Joe Rogan Experience #543) Copy to Youtub
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
@omar2345 "7 habits" refers to a book "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" by Steven Covey. Great book, Used alot in the corporate world, But can apply to other areas of life. Incidentally, The prayer of St. Francis includes the line "grant that I may not so much seek. . . . . To be understood as to understand", In other words, Grant that I may seek to understand others more than I wish to seek to be understood. . . . . Anyway, Back to the topic at hand.

I agree, The brain plays a part, But I would argue that it is the mind that plays a much larger role. . . I view the brain as the "grey matter" in our skulls, Wherease I view the mind as that immaterial part of who we are. The part that is able to conjure such as dreams, The concepts of "justice" and "beauty", Ideas such as "the pythagorean theorem" as well as horrific ideas such as eugenics. It is my belief that it is the mind, That part of us that can not be measured, That controls our thoughts, Our desires, And ultimately our actions.

True, Our past experiences shape who we are, But they do not cause our actions. Influence, Yes. But ultimately the choice is always ours when it comes to an action (or inaction). If what we are saying is that people have no control over their actions (i. E. There is no free will), That they are subject to other forces that direct their bodies that they themselves can not control, Then it is effectively removing any (all) culpability from the actor (the person doing the action).

Put another way, Someone could kill an innocent person for no reason at all, And their defense could be "well, I have no control over my actions, There are other forces directing my actions". And the police and judicial system could conceivably do nothing about it, Because well, Quite frankly THEIR actions are not theirs either (they can't control how they respond), And we would all have to be ok with that.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
Have not heard of 7 habits. I'll check it out and that is something great to stand by. Instead of giving your stance you choose not use it to bias me. Less bias more fairness.

Force: make someone do something against their will.

What I would call that force is the brain. Sure you can say won't eat but will you if your mind is stable. Anorexic people are mentally ill so what's normal to them is not eating whereas obese people who are also mentally ill find it normal to eat too much or not exercise. I am assuming this. Mentally ill I'm using it loosely on specific people's tendencies that are bad. When someone is anorexic they have an obsession to lose weight. External factors like peer pressure forced them to be obsessed with an unhealthy weight. Even when you decide to either gain or lose weight to maintain a healthy standard I also think it is because of external conditions. This can be a significant other, Friend, Etc which triggered an emotion that gave you the courage to change. I don't think anyone without external factors affecting their decision would change. The obese person might have anxiety issues which they deal with by eating or not exercising to lose the weight they have gained. All the time they would hit a breaking point which either they are fatally ill and must change or they can have liposuction and act like nothing has happened. If the obese person decides to lose weight it would be because of a specific instance like a friend telling him his fat or remembering a moment in his life which gave him the confidence to try.

Sum up: The reason why I am posting this was because I have nothing better to do. Not because I carefully assessed my choices. The people who believe they have choice would mean it would be random or not likely to know what they are going to do next. If I could measure someone's choices in life like I flick a coin then it should be a 50/50 chance but I don't think it is the case.

I think it is dependant on past exper
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
@omar2345 I'm actually trying to understand your position first (7 habits ya know, Seek first to understand then see to be understood).

I agree with your definition, To a certain extent. I believe "the constraint of necessity or fate" is not applicable, Or appropriate to free will. Why? One can have a necessity (or a constraint of necessity), But still choose to act otherwise. For example, There is a real necessity to eat. But I can, However, Choose not to. I may not like the result (i. E. Death), But it's still a choice I am free to make. But I am willing to work this definition as well.

I believe in free will. ANd I think our discussion illustrates it. I firmly believe that you exercised free will to respond to my post. I do not think there was some power or force outside of YOU directing your fingers to hit the correct keys to make the words to respond to my post. If you, Indeed, Did not have free will, But were in fact obligated to respond, Then I would be extremely curious to understand what that outside force was that was directing your actions to respond to my post.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
I was speaking about the questions you gave earlier but happier to use logic since I am assuming you cannot defend the religious argument for free will. Don't take offence it is only an assumption. A simple declaration of what you believe would change my mind.

free will: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

That is the definition I have chosen if you want disagree. Then you can. With whatever power you might have I am sure you cannot fly. The constraint of the human body is that it cannot develop wings or be superhuman like Superman. If we acted like Superman trying to fly from a building. Yes that air time can be considered flying or falling but the difference is the person is dead or injured in the process. To be more specific if he wanted to fly for 5 minutes he would either try and fail or use a tool like a plane and not be like Superman.

If that was an extreme example then can you define power?

I'll stick to that but the burden of proof is on your end if you do believe in free will and if you are going to make that claim.
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
@omar2345 to be clear, The Canon of the Bible came to be after the time of CHrist, True. . . But certain texts in the Bible were written before the time of Christ (i. E. The OT).
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
@ganky6 Additionally, I was reluctant to bring God/Religion into the discussion at first. I'm not using God/religion as a basis (yet) for a discussion on freewill. I'm actually shocked that you, An Athiest, Are the first one to bring religion/God in our (yours and mine) discussion on freewill. And while I do not want to insert God/religion into our (yours and mine) discussion on freewill, I do feel obligated to correct your statement about "freewill" not being in the bible.

read Sirach 15:14-17:

God in the beginning created human beings and made them subject to their own free choice. If you choose, You can keep the commandments; loyalty is doing the will of God. Set before you are fire and water; to whatever you choose, Stretch out your hand. Before everyone are life and death, Whichever they choose will be given them.

That seems like a pretty damn good description of free will in the Bible.

But again, I'm not ready to go forth on a Bible-based or religion-based discussion on free will just yet. I say we use our intellect, Our reasoning and our logic first. . . Then bring in the Bible :)
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago

The bible originated from the 6th Century from Hebrew texts. In the Bible I found John 8:36 "so if the son sets you free, You will be free indeed. " This means if the Son of God Jesus sets you free you will be free. If you follow the bible you will be free. That is the interpretation but people make the movement not the book itself. It is not a stretch to say being free means you have free will. You can say the Greek philosophers found it out before Christians but they do not say there words are from God and enforce it instead they allow debates. Which is why free will is more associated with Religion then Greek philosophers since they had open debates whereas religious people were not open to it for many reasons.

We have the ability to think, Do and say under the constraints of our limited perception. It is not like I can plug a wire to everyone's brain to see what you have experienced. Yes we can be automaton but there would be 1 difference that I can think of which is the human error. If it is programmed in them and the other imitations are the same as humans then it is man-made human.

Hopefully this answers why free will is associated with Religion.
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
@ganky6 A few more questions for you, If I may:

So explain to me how you are so sure Free Will is a product of religion. That is a statement asserted by you to be a Truth, So I ask you, On what basis do you have for that assertion to be true?

Do you then believe that you do not have the ability to do, Say, Think anything on your own-- from the words you type, To the things you watch, To the thoughts you think? Are you an automaton that has the inability to do things on your own?
Posted by ganky6 3 years ago
@GuitarSlinger: You know that free will is a concept created by religion? No where in the bible are the words "free will" found. It probably is a concept created after the the bible was constructed to explain some flaws that are written in there. This is just my opinion not backed up by evidence though. Just my opinion.
So to atheist, Until proven there is a God. . . Free will does not apply to us. Meaning it is not a concept to us. Only to religious people.
Have you ever seen the movie "The invention of lying"? I highly recommend the movie, But that as a side note.
In this movie, Everyone is telling the truth. . . Always. Until for some odd reason someone was able to tell a lie. He couldn't describe what it was, Because it was never done before and there was no word for it.

The phrase "free will" wouldn't exist if there was no religion.
Therefore. . . To talk so much about free will in your comment. . . Can you provide me evidence of a God existing? Or that Jesus in fact did resurrect? Because without those two, There wouldn't be a Christian religion and therefore no concept of "free will"
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Thoht 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 Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gave legitimate arguments against God's existence, Pro responded with arguments that largely don't pertain to the topic. No evidence or arguments for God's existence were made which Con did point out, even after responding to Pro's irrelevant points. Pro had sources and con did not, but since no source was relevant they can be discarded from judgement.

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