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

God Exists - Rapid Fire 2,000 Characters/Round

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/10/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 845 times Debate No: 110506
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




You need a minimum fo 2 completed debates to accept this.

1. Character Limit is just 2,000 characters.

2. Round time is 24 hours

3. Pro is to define God and present an argument to support it's existance.

4. God's definition needs to be compatable with an all-powerful creator of the universe. If Pro wishes to affirm other attributes then he/she can do so.

5. Pro is to present one argument only. We will debate the soundness of that argument.

6. If you wish for a shorter round time, then let me know, I am hoping to complete this debate in 1 day.

Best of luck!



If god doesn't exist, then why do we even exist?"
By "we" I mean our consciousness. I get that our biological bodies would be created via evolution but there is absolutely no reason for us to have consciousness. Materialistically, we are robots made from organic material. Every living being is just atoms smashed together in the right way. So you would expect organisms to function like a computer. Taking in information, processing it, then doing the thing it was programmed to do. A cell for example, reacts to a material it needs by surrounding it and taking it into its system. What I am coming at is that the things we consider to be "alive" are not very different from non-living things. They are just machines made with non-living stuff.
If we consider all of this true, then why do we exist? I get that "thinking" was beneficial for us to survive but we did not need to have consciousness. Consciousness doesn't even make sense if we think materialistically. There is just no reason for it to be there. Why am I myself? Why do I see like I do? Why are things are the way they are? These questions don't make sense in any way from an atheistic point of view.
There needs to be reason for our existence and it needs to be beyond our universe. Because as I explained, we do not make sense in this universe. There is no reason for us to exist. Yet we do. Let's arrive at our conclusion:
1-There needs to be a "thing" that caused our existence.
2-It has to be beyond our universe.
3-It has to be able to go against the very rules of the universe.
4-It has to have some control over the universe.(to create us)
These are the definitions of god. If the "thing" can choose not to obey the rules of the universe, we can conclude that it created the rules. The thing is beyond the universe so it is not bound by time. It doesn't need to have "infinite" power. Why it created us is not that important as I am just trying to prove it exists.
Debate Round No. 1


Pro seems to present two arguments here, I will address both.

I. Consciousness
Atheism compatibility:

At best Pro is trying to prove materialism false here. Even if he proved it false, God doesn"t follow. Some theories of mind which don"t mandate materialism are:

And several of these are perfectly atheist compatible.

Being conscious affects the way we process information. If it a way for us to engage and comprehend what we gather regarding the world around us and make actions and decisions based on it. This has clear evolutionary advantages for a social species such as humans who engage in high level comprehension of terrain and social interactions of others in our species. I see no reason to buy Pro"s assertion that we would expect humans to process information like a computer because our brains are wired completely differently to one. We simply don"t work like computers.

We are inefficient as basic math tasks (such as memorising a few digits) and more efficient at comprehension tasks (such as recognising faces), for instance. Pro"s argument from consciousness is a non-starter here.

Moreover any problems in in the purpose of consciousness is just as much as an issue for a theist. Since the fact we are "atoms mashed together" would be correct regardless of whether or not God exists.

First Cause Argument:

Pro asserts:
"1-There needs to be a "thing" that caused our existence."

No justification is given for this. So we can reject this out of hand. I assert there is no need for anything to cause our universes existence, and the idea of such a cause is actually incoherent.

Pro asserts the cause must be outside the universe and not obey the rules and with control. However this doesn"t demonstrate God at all even if all correct. For example a hypothetical quantum fluxiation would also fit that criteria just fine, or any of infinitely possible hypothetical non-intelligent entities that could cause the universe. No God needed.


The universe can not create what it can not create" is my main point here. I am trying to prove that consciousness is not consistent with our universe. It doesn't make sense within the boundaries of our universe. If I am able to prove this, we can arrive at the conclusion that there is some other reason for our consciousness. That reason has to be beyond our universe as it contradicts it. The reason has to be able to change the universe. I argue that this "reason" is god.

I am not saying: "Materialistically consciousness can not exist." I am saying: "Materialistically consciousness has no reason to exist.". Thus, you listing theories of mind which don't mandate materialism was unnecessary.

I said we worked like a computer because we 1-Take in information 2-Process it 3-Generate an appropriate response. This is what a computer does. I did not claim that our brains worked exactly like the computers we program.

Con claims consciousness affects the way we process data, which is not supported by anything and just claimed. Consciousness means "being aware". Which in no way can change the processing made by our brain. Awareness is not necessary for evolution. It doesn't matter if you are aware or not,it only matters if you are acting. We could have been beings that are not conscious but still process information.

The observable "us" is just made of atoms. I am saying that there is no reason for atoms to create consciousness. Therefore,there needs to be something else that creates our consciousness. This is not an issue for theists.

"There needs to be a "thing" that caused our existence."
Here, I do not claim that the universe needs a cause. I claim that "we" need a cause. And if we consider my claim of consciousness not making sense within the universe true, this is a reachable conclusion. Consciousness does not make sense within the universe, therefore it needs a reason beyond the universe.

I do not see how quantum fluctuations are relevant.
Debate Round No. 2



If Pro is going to label any theory of consciousness “God” then the label “God” will become useless very quickly. Consciousness not being consistent with out universe is not the same as saying “Materialistic consciousness has no reason to exist”.

If the universe is perfectly capable of producing conscious beings on its own, then there is no argument to stats that God was necessary for it. Even if Pro could prove there is a reason outside of our universe for consciousness, he is still a very long way from demonstrating that this reason is God.

Moreover even if we took Pro’s computational analogy, then I will assert that “2-Process it” is exactly the function of consciousness in humans. It’s how brains process the information of the world. An “inner movie” of the world is created by which decisions are made from this construct. Humans have to pull information from many different sources, such as vision, sound, balance, etc. Having consciousness as one way of dealing with it to generate an appropriate response is not inconsistent.

Pro seems to be arguing against materialistic consciousness because there is no reason why it shouldn’t exist, rather than it cannot exist in a materialistic world. However:

1. Atheism doesn’t need to explain materialistic consciousness, materialism isn’t a requisite of atheism.

2. There are plenty of reasons why it would exist based on what we know.

There is no reason to invoke explanations outside of our universe when simpler explanations from within it can be given.

Universe Causation

Pro’s 1st round literally states:

“1-There needs to be a "thing" that caused our existence.”

Therefore Pro’s round 2 statement:

“Here, I do not claim that the universe needs a cause. I claim that "we" need a cause.”

Is outright false.

Pro has very poorly defined and outlined his argument here. If Pro wants to stick with consciousness fine, he drops the second portion of his 1st round however.



Consciousness is not consistent with our universe because our universe has not created anything like this before. It is out of place. It has no reason to exist in our universe.

The universe may be capable of producing consciousness if we look it from an idealistic point of view. But this doesn't change the fact that there was no reason for this to happen.

A being that is able to twist the rules of the universe, is beyond the universe and is able to create consciousness is, by definition, god. Because it is able to twist to rules of the universe, we can conclude that it also has some control over it. And because it created consciousness, we can say that it created us.

As I said, consciousness is not necessary for processing. Consciousness is by definition "being aware" and that is in no way necessary for processing things in a different way. Con constantly claims that consciousness somehow affects the way humans think, but that doesn't make sense if we just think of consciousness as "being aware". Con is adding new meanings to "consciousness" to make it seem like it is necessary for something.

I claim that consciousness has no reason to exist in this universe. Atheism does not need to explain materialistic consciousness, but it does need to explain why something that is not expected to be there, there.

Again, con claims that there is a reason for consciousness within the universe without giving any actual explanation.

"There needs to be a "thing" that caused our existence." I made it very clear from the very beginning that with "we" I refer to our own consciousness. This sentence clearly states that a "thing" caused "our" existence. Con assumes that I referred to the universe when I said "our" and this assumption has no basis.

I have made 2 main points here: "Consciousness is not consistent with our universe." "It needs to have a cause outside the universe." if we accept these points, then the thing that caused our existence is,by definition, god.
Debate Round No. 3


“Consciousness is not consistent with our universe because our universe has not created anything like this before. It is out of place. It has no reason to exist in our universe.”

Black Holes were not consistent with our universe. Out universe has not created anything like this before..
Stars were not consistent.
Planets were not consistant.
Hydrocycles were not consistent.
Organic chemistry was not consistent…

Pro has literally no argument here. Complexity arises in stages, intelligence and consciousness would not have arisen until these stages were achieved.

I gave reasons why it would be advantageous for some organism to be conscious, it is a way for them to process information and make actions based on it. While consciousness is not a necessary condition for processing information, it is a plenty sufficient one for it. “Being aware” would be the whole point of consciousness since you are aware of the different sensory inputs and construct a model of reality that is consciousness.

Atheism has no need to demonstrate necessity of consciousness. Moreover if atheism does, then so does theism. Pro has provided no reason why this sia problem at all unique to a Godless universe.

Neither has Pro responded to me argument that even if it does require an explanation, there is no reason that explanation is a God. I gave pansychism (that consciousness is a universal and primordial feature of all things as an example which has see no entertainment from Pro, so he drops these arguments.

Rules of the Universe
Pro asserts that God can change the rules of the universe to allow for conscious beings. Via. Occam’s razor then, the universe already has rules that allow for conscious beings from the beginning. Cut out God and the necessity to change the rules. The rules of the universe currently allow for consciousness thus, Pro has no argument.



Con is trying to take everything I say as literal as possible without giving it a thought at first. Black holes make sense, they are too dense that even light can not escape their gravitational pulse. Stars make sense, they are just masses of gas that emit light due to nuclear fusion. Planets formed because of gravity, things pull another things and this way they form bigger things. I think I expressed my point.

Con is clearly misunderstanding the definition of "consciousness". Being "aware" is used as in "existing as a thing in the human body". A computer can be programmed to be "aware" of its surroundings. Does that make it conscious? No. The definition of consciousness should not be taken too literally.

As I said, being conscious is not at all necessary for anything. Think of it as reading a book. The book and all of its contents are still there even if you do not read it. Reading it just makes you know about the book but that does not change the book in any way.

Atheism does need to demonstrate the necessity of consciousness. Consciousness is a thing that exists in the universe. Atheists do not believe in a god, but they do believe that they exist in the universe. Therefore, if an atheist wants to explain his point of view to someone, the atheist has to explain consciousness as well.

I explained in my previous argument that the thing that created consciousness would be, by definition, god. So yes, I did respond to con's argument.

I need to repeat my main point here, I am claiming that consciousness has no reason to exist in a universe like this one. Saying: "there is a point of view which states that consciousness is universal and primordial.." does not give a reason for consciousness to exist.

Universe may have rules that allow for conscious beings. As I said in a previous round I am not claiming that it is impossible for conscious beings to exist in our universe. Con claims that I have no argument when they have yet to understand my argument.
Debate Round No. 4


“Con is trying to take everything I say as literal as possible without giving it a thought at first.”

If Pro wanted to argue using parables or something then he should have been clear here. Pro’s argument has suffered a serious lack in logical progression and structure. If my arguments have at all missed the mark (and I don’t believe they have) then that’s because of Pro’s poorly outlined argument.


I was very clear in my previous rounds that I was referring to the “inner movie” experience. I never argued that it is a “thing”, but a process. A process the ( most likely) uses to process information about the world around us. Computer analogies don’t apply here since have a completely different architecture, they aren’t comprised of neurons.

If computers were programmed to create such a representation of reality internally, then I struggle to see how Pro can justify that it is not conscious. Because there would be very little to distinguish between another human’s consciousness (as in, anyone but you), and a computer’s. That’s the issue of epistemological solipsism. If Pro cannot even prove that other minds are or are not conscious, then Pro cannot assert that computers aren’t/cannot be.


I don’t need to prove necessity, only possibility, and sufficiency. Consciousness is clearly a sufficient method of utilising information from senses, even if it is not the only viable way. Biology went via. this route – so what? Moreover I fail to see what Pro attempts to accomplish with his reading a book analogy, life isn’t reading a book, we are processing the environment in real-time with partially correct data from our senses, we need to make decisions based on it, the “book” is written by our conscious experience.

The fact we are even physically talking about consciousness means that consciousness clearly has a physical impact on the world around us, thus the argument that we would get the same outcome in life without consciousness is evidently false.



Con is clearly misunderstanding the definition of "consciousness". Being "aware" is used as in "existing as a thing in the human body". A computer can be programmed to be "aware" of its surroundings. Does that make it conscious? No. The definition of consciousness should not be taken too literally."

I would advise Con to read this part again because they got all of it wrong. Here I do not say Con argued that it was a "thing", here I myself argue that it is a "thing". It is pretty clear that I am disagreeing with Con rather than explaining Cons definition of consciousness.

Here, I am saying Con got the definition of consciousness wrong. If we go by Cons definitions:
""Being aware" would be the whole point of consciousness since you are aware of the different sensory inputs...", we can conclude that a computer is conscious since it can be programmed to be "aware" of its surroundings and be "aware" of the inputs it is receiving. Even if Con did not get my point here, I literally say that doesn't make a computer conscious afterwards: " Does that make it conscious? No."

"A computer can be programmed to be aware of its surroundings." Here, I do not claim that it can be programmed to be conscious. I say this to show Con that their definition of consciousness is flawed yet con, again, without any reason at all decides to assume that I am referring to programming a self-conscious computer. We, today, can program computers to be "aware" of the inputs they are receiving and to be "aware" of their surroundings. There is no reason to misunderstand this sentence and if it is misunderstood by Con, the reason is not my inability to express ideas but rather Cons weird habit of understanding the ideas the way they want to. This has been pretty clear as Con misunderstood my ideas 3 times already and the reason for their misunderstanding was them assuming I am referring to something.

(to Cons last statement) That doesn't prove that it is physical itself.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Alex.oland 3 years ago
I did not ignore them. You said consciousness somehow affects the way we think and that does not make sense considering its definition: "being aware". You said consciousness is "a way of being aware of the inputs you are receiving". That is just not true. "Being aware" used in the description of consciousness does not literally mean awareness. To counter this I gave the example of computers we program today being "aware" of the inputs they are receiving but not being conscious, thus showing that consciousness actually has nothing to do with processing the data. You completely ignored me after I said this and claimed that I gave no answer to your explanation of consciousness.

There are different ways to form arguments. I think my arguments were clear but because you were trying to make sense of them in your own way you just started to assume things I did not even mean. I do admit that some of my expressions were not clear but to argue that the whole reason we got off track was my way of forming arguments is a little bit of an overstatement.

At some parts, even after I explained myself, you consisted on having your own opinion about my arguments. I explained what I meant with "consciousness not being consistent with the universe." but you just went on not taking my explanation and trying to find a flaw in my explanation by taking every word literally. You completely ignored some part of the explanation and took one part and tried to expose it. The thing is, that explanation was a whole and taking a random part out of it and counting it as the only thing I said about the topic was kind of dishonest.

I know this is long and hard to read but the thing is, I do not believe everything I said in this debate was wrong and I do not agree that you were perfect. Well, the debate is over anyways so I should not care, I think. I just wanted to explain myself.
Posted by Envisage 3 years ago
I have plenty of reasons why the universe would yield consciousness though assuming it is materialistic. You just ignored them. I asserted it is a way to process information and model reality. We make decisions based on this model.

If you presented your argument in logically valid premise conclusion format, then this argument would not have gotten so far off track. Because your arguments were so unclear.
Posted by Alex.oland 3 years ago
Firstly, I apologise if I have been rude. That really was not my intention. But I think I was right about you misunderstanding a lot of things. Like, you thought I was referring to "universe" with the proverb "we" and I had no idea why you thought that way.
Secondly, I am actually an atheist myself. I just thought of an argument and tried to defend it. The thing I noticed was, you got caught up so much on the topic of "consciousness" that you haven't realised the biggest flaw in my argument. I demand a reason for consciousness without even giving one. Yes, of course I say god created it, but I never explain why and try to get away with saying "it is not important". If this point was pushed, I have no idea to how I would go about defending it.
Anyways, I really feel like I have been rude so I apologise again. I am not really used to expressing my opinions just with text and in a somewhat of a formal way, so I understand how you got misunderstood some of my arguments wrong.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: This RFD only considers argument validity. For Pro to win this debate he had to show that his argument for God could not be explained by an alternate hypothesis. As Con pointed out, the existence of consciousness does not mandate the existence of God. Pro did not forumate an argument that necessitates this conclusion as opposed to any alternative. The main thrust of his case after that was that consciousness is not consistent with the universe, and this argument is not compelling as it is merely an appeal to ignorance. Even if I, the reader, accept that we can't explain how consciousness exists, Pro must still show why that can ONLY infer the existence of God. His inability to do this means his case did not have a conclusion that followed from it's premises. Con wins.

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