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

Existence of a god

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 742 times Debate No: 99198
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (0)




My position is not "there is no god" but rather "I lack belief in all gods". I have the default position when it comes to belief in anything, since lack of belief is the default position when there is a lack of evidence. Evidence, would naturally lead to a belief. Lack of evidence leads to lack of belief.
Rules of debate:
1) Burden of proof lies with pro, because I am not taking an affirmative position.
2) Pro should post their arguments in round 1 and waive round 3 in order to keep the number of debate rounds used for argument even between us.
3) No personal attacks, insults, ad hominem etc
Violation of any of the above rules means voters should vote for the one who did not violate these rules for conduct.


I accept the debate.

Firstly, I would like to thank con for the question. The existence of God is the ultimate question anyone can ask. All the meaning of life comes from God. If God does exist and we do not know it, we are not living. All life comes from God and not knowing Him would be not knowing life itself.

I am Christian, so you will be getting the Christian point of view on this subject. I must also say that I believe this to be the only correct point of view. This is, if God does exist, then He is an objective being. In other words, God is not the imagination or creation of different people. The God I believe is the creator of universe and the source of morality.

Now that I have stated which God I will be defending the existence, I will proceed.

The burden of proof also lies with you, for you are taking an affirmative action in saying: "there is a lack of evidence." Or in other words, no one can know if God exists. You must explain why there is no evidence, because that is a very controversial claim.


Evidence - "that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof." [1]

You say there is no evidence for the existence of God. I am the first to say that I cannot by any means write an article that by itself completely proves the existence of a deity, much less the specific Christian deity. However, I would like you to think of how much belief you have in aspects of your life, that lacks the proof to back it.
Imagine, you have a mother, father or wife. Now I would ask you to prove, that one of those people love you. This proof must be undeniable, 100% accurate, without room for doubt. This type of evidence doesn"t come about so easily. Now try living your life only believing in things that you have 100% certainty on. Only a computer "lives" that "life". No emotion, no faith. We can hardly say that it truly lives. So, if you want to live this life of absolute evidence go ahead. Make sure you know that the floor under won"t disappear from under you.

Hopefully you are not talking about absolute evidence. I assume you are not expecting a complete proof for the existence of God (especially with only 5000 characters.) If you do want that type of evidence then I don"t mind taking the debate there.

Now on to what matters.
I believe that there are some arguments that although they don"t leave you with no room to deny the existence of God, they are compelling.

1)The cosmological argument.

1. The universe exists.
2. It could not be the cause of itself.
3. It could not come from nothing.
4. It could not be an effect in an infinite series of causes and effects.

If these four premises are true, then we can infer that God Exists. In this argument, the first premise is self-evident. Hopefully we both agree on that. Now the next three premises are potential causes of the universe, leaving the only other possibility to be God, or a new cause that you can come up with. This is the nature of the argument. Now if you agree with these three premises you can skip the next paragraph otherwise I will explain them to you.
Firstly, the universe cannot be the cause of itself. The effect must always come after the cause. If the universe was created by the universe, then it would have existed before existed. This is impossible and just a loop of contradiction. Secondly, ex nihilo, nihil fit. "From nothing, nothing comes." 0*x =0, where "x" is any real number. Thirdly, it could not be an effect in an infinite series of causes and effects. If it were, then we would never reach the conclusion, which is the universe. 0*infinity =CONTRADICTION.
If you want to debate any of these premises, I will be happy to.

It is important to note that the cosmological argument does not argue for a creator, it argues for a cause. My claim is that a Creator is a good cause.

There are many other arguments for a God. There are also many arguments for no God. But you can"t say there are no evidences. What you could defend is that the evidences for and against are equal. I also believe that the evidences are not equal, but it is safer.


Thank you again I hope you understand everything I said.

Debate Round No. 1


The logic I use that there is a lack of evidence for any deity is that, I have not run into anyone with said evidence. If no one is able to produce evidence of a deity, it can be concluded that there is a lack of evidence for said deity at this time. I personally, have not run into any compelling evidence for a deity, and I know of no one who has. I admit, there is the possibility that there exists evidence that we are yet to be aware of, but it doesn't make any sense to base a belief based on evidence that might or might not exist.

I suppose I should have been more clear on what I meant by "lack of evidence", but by this I mean that we do not know of any evidence, not necessarily that there is for sure no evidence. If you have evidence for a god, you can present it, which I see you have presented something, which I will address below in the second bolded title from this one and show how it's not evidence of a god.

RE: why do you believe a "loved one" loves you?
Well, there is usually evidence that someone loves you. Love is a very subjective topic. People show love in many different ways. One evidence that they love you, is if you feel loved when with them. This may not be perfect evidence, but it is something. Now, another evidence is to ask them how they personally would show love to another person, and then compare what they say to what they actually do to you. If those things match up, you can conclude they love you. In addition, there are other evidences of finding out if someone loves you that may be more reliable, but it's not necessarily something everyone can do. For example, you can measure their brain activity when they think about you. Specific activity in specific parts of the brain would indicate that they feel love for you. So, there are scientific ways to measure someone's love for another person, just I imagine most people don't go through it. They trust the other evidences, as shown through that person's actions.

Now, I suppose these evidences beg the question: well if feelings or experiences are appropriate for determining if someone loves you, then shouldn't feeling and experiences also be appropriate for determining whether a god exists? I suppose it is valid for you personally, but for it to be valid for other people to accept, it has to be something that can be tested for themselves and they get the same results as you. I've done much testing of times when someone feels that a god exists, such as sing hymns, read the holy scriptures, etc, but I did not get the same results they got. Thus, this would be subjective evidence. For loved ones, it's also mostly subjective evidence that we have, which is not perfect evidence. We could have a another complete debate on whether subjective evidence is valid, so I think we should leave it at this for now, since that also is a major topic that is sort of getting off-track.

The cosmological argument:
This argument begs the question: If the universe can't come from nothing, how come this god can? And if the God can, then why not the universe? You see, you have to accept that something always existed or came from nothing, otherwise you wouldn't ever have a universe. Either this god came from nothing, the universe did, or perhaps something else that caused the universe to come into existence was always in existence and had no cause. There's no evidence I know of that suggests any of these things. Though, I suppose one could argue that the Big Bang might be evidence the universe came from nothing, but I won't make that argument, as I don't have the burden of proof in this debate since I am not taking a position. I just thought I'd mention it as a possibility.

Now, one could say that in our universe it is impossible for something to come from nothing, that does seem to be the case. However, who is to say whether or not other universes exist, in which laws work differently and in these universes, it makes perfect sense for something to come from nothing? Then what could happen is one of these universes is the real cause of our universe. Now, I am not saying this is what happened, I am just offering a very possible explanation for the universe's existence that would not go against the cosmological argument. It doesn't have to be a god that caused our universe. The cosmological argument is not direct evidence for a god, but rather it's one of the many conclusions one could arrive to through it. Unless there is supporting evidence a god exists, or evidence that disproves all other possible hypotheses, this argument is weak since there are many conclusions one can make from the cosmological argument.



The type of evidence that no one has and no one ever will have is mathematical type evidence. For example, 2 + 2 = 4 or a triangle can never be a four-sided shape. This is, there is no 100% certainty, type of evidence. The evidence I do have and a lot of other people have is similar to the evidence for a murder. Like the evidence presented in court, evidence for God is an accumulation of arguments. You could say, the probability for there being a God is higher than the probability for there not being a God.

Hopefully You understood this part and agree with me.

The "why do you believe a loved one loves you" argument was an example to show that there are a lot of things in life that you can"t have 100% certainty on. Basically, if you are not looking for mathematical style proof for the existence of God, then the "loved one loves you" argument is for you to read again. If you"re not looking for that type of scientific evidence then carry on, otherwise please tell me next round if you want the scientific data for the proof of God. By the way, if you do, I don"t have any, nor does anyone else. What I do have, are arguments.

At the end of the third paragraph You say: "So, there are scientific ways to measure someone's love for another person, just I imagine most people don't go through it. They trust the other evidences, as shown through that person's actions." I agree with you completely. Transporting what you said to the existence of God, even if there is scientific evidence for God we don"t need it, because we have other evidences that aren"t 100% certain, but are more than good enough.

In the beginning of the fourth paragraph, you missed out on what you had just written. I agree that if you feel loved by God, then that"s just an evidence for you personally. But You said and very well said: "They trust the other evidences, as shown through that person's actions." We can test other evidences, like God"s non-subjective actions. For example, the creation of the universe, or even, what is this God like, i.e. morality.

Now we both know what type of evidences we need to prove the existence of God.

Your questions at the beginning of the fifth paragraph are extremely common and not very good. You cannot ask for the beginning of something that is by definition, timeless. Let me put it this way. The effect is the universe, which is finite in time and space. So, the cause must be infinite in space and time. The cosmological argument begs no question.
Again, the cosmological argument doesn"t prove that there must be a God. It balances out the causes, showing that the most probable cause is God.

So, you created some other possible causes that seem just as likely to you than the God cause. For example, the other universe where laws work differently. I assume that those laws are, laws of physics and laws of logic. Ok, totally possible, for now. Now I can ask you, where did that universe come from. You might reply it came from another universe, with different laws, which in turn came from another one. That would just be the infinite series of causes and effects. So, you could say instead, it"s an infinite universe, i.e. not bounded by space and time and with infinite power. And I would say ok for now. So, I would ask you how did this infinite universe create the complicated pre-defined laws of physics and logic that came with the big bang. You could say, the universe created infinite universes and one of them just so happened to be ours. If you would say that, again you would be using the infinite series again. So instead, you could say, it has a mind.
I am sure you can see by now where we are heading. We are precisely defining the all-powerful, all-knowing, timeless God. I cannot write the all-loving part yet because I haven"t written down the moral argument yet. But be sure to look it up.

Now it is true that there are many conclusions that you could make from the cosmological argument, I"m just saying the cause is probably God.

Just like this argument, there are many other arguments, some stronger, some weaker, but they all increase the probability for the existence of God, none of which give you the 100% proof.

You will only get the 100% certainty once you repent of your sins and turn to God.

Romans 1:20 "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
Debate Round No. 2


Quotes from my opponent will be in italics, summation of a point will be in bold.

Re: the probability is that there is a god
The evidence that I've come across for a god is unconvincing in general, so I come to the conclusion that the probability for a god is unlikely.

I agree with you completely. Transporting what you said to the existence of God, even if there is scientific evidence for God we don"t need it, because we have other evidences that aren"t 100% certain, but are more than good enough.

I disagree that the evidences are more than good enough. As I pointed out with the cosmological argument, it begs a question, and there are usually problems like this with all arguments for a god, at least I've found that in my experience.

You cannot ask for the beginning of something that is by definition, timeless. Let me put it this way. The effect is the universe, which is finite in time and space.
What/who is to say the universe is not timeless? And again, if this universe is not timeless, then there could have been another universe that is timeless which caused this universe. It doesn't show that the most probable cause is a god, it just shows that one of the many causes could be a god. All the cosmological argument does is point to a god as a possibility, it doesn't directly show that it needs to be a god, or that it is likely a god.

You could say, the universe created infinite universes and one of them just so happened to be ours. If you would say that, again you would be using the infinite series again.
I don't see how this line of logic would be using the infinte series again. As long as one universe is infinite itself, it breaks the chain of the need for an infinite amount of universes. Alternatively, one could claim that our universe always existed, or one could believe in the mainstream science route that it was created on its own from a point of singularity.

Romans 1:20
You can't tell me that verse even makes any logical sense. If something is invisible, it's not clearly perceived by definition. But, I guess this doesn't matter as it doesn't really prove anything.


I would like to end the debate by just reinforcing some points I made, that I think you didn't quite get. I won"t be making new arguments just restating some points in a different way, for you to understand better.

"I disagree that evidences (...)." That is a valid opinion and I won"t make you believe in anything, nor will God himself. God created us with free will, and we are permitted to choose what we believe. If you haven"t encountered enough evidence to say God is the most probable explanation, I suggest you seek God. Don"t just seek evidence for God in arguments, which is good, but truly seek God himself. Ask Him to reveal himself to.

Pascal put it this way: You believe in God. If He exists, infinite reward, if He doesn"t, you live a normal life. You don"t believe in God. If He exists, infinite punishment, if He doesn"t, you live a normal life.

Now to clear up some things. I did mention about, in round 2, what would happen if you say the other universe that created this one is timeless. But, I will say it again just to make sure you understood.
Obviously, this universe is not timeless, because of the big bang. If another universe created this universe and that universe is timeless, I would say, that is a valid point. But then, I would ask you, how did it create this very complicated, fine-tuned universe. This is how did the timeless universe be able to create the perfect balance of laws of physics, so on, so on. You could respond: it created infinite universes and one of them, just so happened to be ours. I would respond: that would just be the infinite series of causes and effect all over again, and we know that"s wrong. So, you could say: It has some kind of "super-mind". I would respond: Ok that"s another valid, possible point.
I said all this last round, but, maybe now it"s a bit clear. The point of this last bit that I wrote down was, if we carry on describing this other timeless universe, we will start to realise that we are describing God.

The cosmological argument doesn"t prove God exists, but it doesn"t just show that all the other causes are probably not.

Ok, I must admit I might not be able to call is an infinite series of causes and effects, because it would be one cause and infinite effects, which is different. I"ll have to look into it more depth. Still, this would not contradict God, it would however change the way we see God I think. God would be more like a machine that produces universes.
Then again, ask yourself which is more likely.

Maybe this last point that put up shows that we cannot prove God exists, we cannot completely understand God.
God is above logic; we will never be able to define something that is undefinable. We cannot grasp God with our logic. We cannot put infinity in a box and brand it God.
Job 11:7 Can you discover the depths of God? Can you discover the limits of the Almighty?

Romans 1:20 is basically saying, we cannot see the invisible, we can however see His actions, and his actions show his existence.

Thank you for the debate. Thank you for being honest with me and for being civilised in this debate. What I hoped You got from this is that there are some arguments that do push you to believe in God. But I also hope I showed you, that you will not reach God through arguments and logic. You will however, reach God trough Christ. John 14.6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Remember it is not through logic or reasoning that you come to believe in God. It is through faith. I challenge you to really seek God in prayer.

John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word,"and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TropaBino 1 year ago
I'm not sure what kind of evidence you want, to show that the universe cannot create itself. Do you want observable evidence? Philosophically, the universe can't come from from itself... or from an infinite series of causes and effects. Or from nothing... Go to anyone and tell them the universe created itself. They are just gonna laugh. They are not assumptions. They are obvious. How can something come from nothing. I'm not putting limitations on reality. reality is the one that is limited and i'm just pointing that out. In reality, a square is not a circle, neither can something create itself. ask me to give you observable evidence for any, I won't be able to give it to you. But it is obvious. Don't complicate things.
Posted by webby53 1 year ago
This debate was just a roundabout of the cosmological argument, (with love?) which was poorly discussed in my opinion. I'm giving vote to Con for two main reasons. The first is that Pro makes very bad assumptions. They seems to believe that there cannot be an infinite number of regresses. That however, is not provable and so cannot be tosses aside as an impossibility. Another assumption is that the universe cannot be the cause of itself. WHY? You have no evidence to assert that the universe didn't cause itself, so you cannot make this claim, while also implying that God caused the universe (implying that he caused himself or always existed etc). Yet another assumption is that the universe (or anything really) couldn't come from nothing. It pains me how thiest's can put limitations on reality and then say that something exists that does not follow those same limits. So what/who/how was god made?how did he create from nothing? The other reason is that i hate end of debate conversions. Alas i cannot vote so my opinion remains in the comments.
Posted by dr.jimmythefish 1 year ago
1. see the second half of my argument 2. the thing that always gets my is the idea that evidence is unnecessary, and that all atheists beg for scientific evidence. I don't want scientific evidence or I would have asked foe it I want you to rebuff my philosophical arguments without just quoting the bible.
Posted by TropaBino 1 year ago
Posted by TropaBino 1 year ago
The world isn't senseless. I don't know what world you're living in. We have common SENSE, we have logic, we have science to make sense of out of things. All these things point to a God. The fact that atheists ask for evidence is evidence for a God... Why would you ask for any type of evidence, be it scientific or just arguments, if the world is complete chaos. Why would you ask for scientific evidence if science is built on uniformity in nature yet you believe nature is just chaos. Why are you using logic to argument with me if you don't believe in logic. That's the thing with atheists, they live life, contradictory to what they think, and what they believe in (or what they actually don't believe in.) Science and logic have as it's pillar God, and they try to use it, to prove God's inexistence.
You say the world is completely chaotic, yet you believe in science and logic, which cannot exist if the world is chaotic. Why would you use the scientific method if you're just a clump of cells fizzing just like any other thing in the universe. Would you trust your self.

If the world is chaos, why would you accept it. What is the moral law that says that we should further chaos.

Let me describe to you what happens in your head. The only thing that makes sense is that, have the moral duty to further chaos in a senseless world with no morals. Def. Atheism: Sport in which players try to make the most contradictions possible. Don't come to me saying, morals are relative, because if they are why are you telling me 'relative morals'. Why do you waste time debating and using logic, which you deny exists, to convince someone that we shouldn't convince anyone, because there's no point.

The only thing that's chaotic in this world is the mind of an atheist.

Don't talk about God if don't you know Him. You don't believe in Him so, why should I take your word for something that you don't believe in. Seek God and You will find Him. Don't seek Him and You won
Posted by dr.jimmythefish 1 year ago
"You're the one saying, life has no real meaning, when in fact, you're living completely the opposite of what you say." Life exists to further life, life is absurd, useless, we exist in a world of random chance we have 3 options on how to react 1. with an explanation built a tall tail to make sense out of the senseless 2. suicide 3. accept it work to further chaos and use it to become a superior man."Everything in our universe points to a God." If gods do/did exist then he is 1. a flipping psychopath 2. tribal he takes sides and 3. necessarily evil, enter the age old mantra power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely, thus the Omnipotent god is also omnicorupt.
Posted by TropaBino 1 year ago
EggsAndSam; You need to realise we are not making an extra-ordinary claim. Everything in our universe points to a God. You are the one making an extra-ordinary claim. You're the one saying, life has no real meaning, when in fact, you're living completely the opposite of what you say. That is being a hypocrite and delusional. Your the one saying that we came from nothing... which is impossible. Where did you get 93% of scientists are atheists... Not that this makes any difference, but most of the high intelligence people to have ever lived, believe in a God.
Starting with Einstein (founder of relativity),

Heisenberg (founder of quantum mechanics),

C.S lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien (greatest writers and thinkers of the last century, both devout christians.)

Going back further, Isaac Newton (founder of classical mechanics),

Sir Francis Bacon (the guy that established the scientific method said: "God never wrought miracle to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it. It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man"s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men"s minds about to religion.")

Johannes Kepler
Galileo Galilei
Rene Descartes
Blaise Pascal
Robert Boyle
Michael Faraday
William Thomson Kelvin
Max Planck

In fact it is hard to find a great scientist that doesn't believe in God.
Posted by EggsAndSam 1 year ago
Sad, religious individuals are so sad. What I meant, FollowerofChrist1955 I am, is that religious individuals never have any evidence to present. If you're going to make an extraordinary claim such that a superior being materializing out of nothingness somehow controls every individual on this planet Earth out of 10^24 planets in the observable universe which alone account for a fraction of the physical universe, you better have sufficient evidence to back it up.
I'm not being asked to be "spoonfed" the evidence, but rather shown a valid argument backed up by an abundance of evidence, something you and so many other "sad, sad religious individuals" have failed to do.
I refuse to believe in something that has no proof, you would laugh at someone if they told you to believe in a talking bed without showing you it or giving you evidence, yet you are doing the same thing.
Again you call atheists stupid when, again, 93% of elite scientists are atheist and you yet again lack proper spelling and grammar.
UGH could you be more stupid in your responses?... Religious people, sigh, they suck the intellectuality right out of you because they are like a vacuum when it comes to intellect. As I said, "their" (they're) like a wombat in headlights!
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
Sad, atheist are so sad. I accuse them of refusing to look for Gods existence , and demanding that someone ELSE do all the work FOR them or they won't look for nor accept that God exist, UNLESS religious "give them the evidence.

And what do you do? You say:
You are being severely hypocritical for every religious individual whom I have debated with did not give one single ounce of evidence pointing towards the existence of God.

Let all note, this imbecile proves he wants someone else to "GIVE HIM evidence"

THEN deliberately Lies:
They do what Pro has done in this debate, which is "Well, there is no explanation that I am aware of, so it must be God".

My debate is on atheist behavior of refusing to SEARCH for God themselves ... which as you see, Sam I am, is doing just that!

Pro does not know every single theory that exists pertaining to cosmology? Cosmology? I claim atheist are STUPID. Sam I am, confirms their all spaced out .... which was my point in the first place.

if atheists are so 'stupid' (even though you have made an abundance of grammar and spelling mistakes throughout your comment)

There is the whole point. We ... the greater of the populace have informed the unbelieving that they are being held accountable and are consigned to eternal suffering in a Lake of "FIRE" , and what has their attention?

"Grammar" hmmm, lets see. An existence in a "BURNING" Lake of Fire OR punctuation and spelling?
Yep grammar has it.

Could you have been more stupid in your responses. SIGH....... atheist, sigh, they suck the Life right out of you! As I said their like deer perpetually in the headlights.
Posted by TropaBino 1 year ago
God does not change. The difference you see between the new and old testament is normal for an unbeliever. What happened between there 'testemants' was, the messiah came. In the old testament the jews were promised a Messiah, and when He came, a lot of them weren't ready and missed the messiah they had been waiting for. This happened for various reasons, but manly because a lot of jews at that time, including the teachers, were not in touch with God, i.e. were not his children any more because they lived in hypocrisy... That is a whole other matter. The point is, most jews missed their messiah and now they don't have the full revelation of who God is. This full revelation was Jesus Christ. Christ comes from messiah in the translation from Hebrew to Greek.

God remains the same, it's just that the full gospel came with the messiah. Don't get me wrong, it was in the old testament, but because it came in the form of prophesy, it was hard to understand. Now because Jesus has come and died for us on the cross, everyone can get forgiveness. For example, before they had to sacrifice a lamb for the sins of Israel every year, but now Jesus is the lamb and has died for everyone once and for all for all sins. Now, God tells you to repent of your sins and turn to Him, and through Jesus you are saved.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
No votes have been placed for this debate.