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

God Exists

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/27/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,315 times Debate No: 118422
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (0)




In this debate I will make the case that there are good reasons to believe that God exists and that there are not comparably good reasons to believe that God does not exist. It is not my intention to provide conclusive proof, But rather to show that the Theist is on good intellectual grounds for his belief.

Although I am a Christian, I am not defending an exclusively Christian conception of God. To do that I should need to write on the historicity of Jesus and his rising from the dead, Which is outside of the scope of this debate.

It is useful to cite sources for factual claims, But the substance of each argument should be contained within the body of our responses. We should not have to follow a link to look up part of the argument being made. One must contain their entire argument, Including their reasoning, Within the body of their response.

The task of my opponent is twofold. He will need to first tear down each of the arguments I have constructed. In each argument he will identify which premise is wrong or how the conclusion does not follow from the premises. It will be up to the audience to determine which is more reasonable to believe, The premise or his objections to it.

My opponent"s second task will be to construct an argument or arguments of his own in favor of his non-theistic worldview.

My first argument is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It can be formulated as follows:

1)Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2)The universe began to exist.
3)Therefore, The universe has a cause.

Most will accept the truth of premise 2, So I"ll focus on premise 1. Consider what the denial of premise 1 would mean. This would mean that something can come from nothing, Which is absurd. If it were true that something could come from nothing, Then it becomes impossible to explain why just everything and anything doesn"t come from nothing. Why don"t we expect things should just pop into existence all around us all the time? If someone were to deny premise 1, Then they should also deny the entire scientific endeavor. Scientific inquiry relies on the notion that effects can predictably come from causes. If we should unmoor effects from causes, Then it becomes impossible to have any confidence in scientific conclusions. Why must the result have come from the experiment? Why could the result not have suddenly popped into existence, Uncaused, At the time that we measure? In the face of the counterintuitive results of denying premise 1, It seems more reasonable to believe premise 1 than to reject premise 1.

So why must this cause be God? Remember that this first cause brought into existence all of space, Time, Matter, And energy. It must, Therefore, Be immaterial, Space-less, Eternal, And powerful. We can also deduce that it must be personal. This is because, Apart from the creation of the universe, The first cause existed in a timeless state. Whatever cause is impersonal brings about its effects whenever the sufficient conditions are met (it does not "decide" to produce its effect, But it simply does so when the conditions are met). Since the first cause existed timelessly with no beginning, We should expect that an impersonal cause would have brought about its effect timelessly with no beginning. The fact that we encounter a universe that came into existence rather than a timeless universe strongly disconfirms the notion that the first cause was impersonal. We can summarize our reasoning this way:

1)If the first cause is impersonal, The universe is timeless.
2)The universe is not timeless.
3)Therefore, The first cause is not impersonal.

God is the best candidate for an eternal, Immaterial, Powerful, Personal creator of the universe, And thus the beginning of the universe gives us good reason to believe that God exists.

My second argument is the Argument from Contingency. Everything that exists either exists contingently (owing its existence to something outside of itself) or necessarily (owing its existence to nothing outside of itself). An iPhone, For example, Owes its existence to the manufacturer. The manufacturer may owe its existence to the inventor, And so on. Ultimately, We must come to a stopping point, Something that does not owe its existence to anything outside itself, That provides the sufficient reason for contingent reality to exist. Think of a chain suspended in the air. Each link is suspended from a higher link. You must eventually come to a link that is not hanging on more links, However, For the chain to be suspended. There must be a fixed link that does not owe its suspension to more links. The argument can be formulated this way.

1)Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, Either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2)If the universe has an explanation for its existence, That explanation is God.
3)The universe exists.
4)Therefore, The universe has an explanation for its existence.
5)Therefore, The explanation for the existence of the universe is God.

Why must the explanation of the universe be God? Once again, We see that the explanation must be timeless and immaterial. The only candidates for immaterial objects are either an unembodied mind or an abstract object (like a number). Abstract objects don"t stand in causal relationships, However. The number 5 never put $5 in my pocket! By process of elimination, This being must be an unembodied mind. In addition, The same argument we used for personhood in the cosmological argument above will work here since this being will have brought about the beginning of the universe.

The third and last argument I will present here is the Moral Argument. It is composed of three steps:

1)If God does not exist, Objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2)Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3)Therefore, God exists.

If God does not exist, Then there was no purpose to the existence of human beings. Since we weren"t created for a purpose, There is no way we ought to be. There is just what we are. When we use moral terms, We are using the terminology of "ought". You *ought* to be kind or generous or compassionate. If humanity is without purpose, However, Then there is no objective answer to how you *ought* to be. Without purpose there is no "oughtness" and moral terms like good or bad just don"t apply.

We also see that if God does not exist then it seems the mind is either the same thing as the brain or is directly caused by the brain. This means, However, That our thoughts are not free but are dependent on our neurochemistry. You may have the impression that you are making decisions, But your brain is just undergoing successive brain states. These brain states don"t change according to your will, But rather they change according to the laws of physics. Without free will, However, There can be no such thing as "wrong" or "right" decisions. It is meaningless to say that you ought to have chosen to do right if you were not free to have done otherwise. You do not have any moral duty to do what it is impossible for you to do, And if God does not exist then it is impossible for you to do anything other than what your brain chemistry compels you to do.

Finally, If God does not exist then there is no ultimate moral accountability. Whether you live like a saint or a sinner, Like Mother Teresa or Hitler, It makes no ultimate difference. In the end you will wind up in the same place. If God does not exist, Then there is no weight to your decisions because they don"t ultimately change anything. Whether you feed the homeless or exterminate them, They were all going to die in the end anyway. Sure, It might matter to them subjectively, But it doesn"t matter in an objective sense. If one person prefers feeding and another extermination, Neither view is morally better than the other. There is no objective difference in the end.

Without purpose, Free will, Or moral accountability there can be no meaning to objective moral values and duties. However, We have a very strong firsthand experience of objective moral values and duties. We experience, Firsthand, That some things really are wrong. Things like child abuse, Rape, And murder really are wrong and the perpetrators should be punished even if they think they were in the right. Our own firsthand experience of objective moral values and duties gives us good reason to believe in them. Since they can only exist if God exists, However, Then this counts as a good reason to believe in God.

I have made three arguments. I have argued that God is the best explanation for how the universe came into being, That God is the best explanation for why something exists rather than nothing at all, And that God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties. It is the burden of my opponent to tear down each of these arguments. He must show that God is not the best explanation for each of these phenomena. He must also build an argument or arguments of his own that lead to the conclusion that God does not exist.

It will be up to the audience to determine what they find most reasonable to believe. I trust that you will find that it is more reasonable to believe that God does exist than to believe that he does not.


God does not exist.
But if your use of diction God is used in placement for words such as universe, Or source, Then that idea is very well true. But mass majority do not use the word as such and narrates the idea of God to be a body, Energy, Or thing, That holds all power. This idea is absurd.
For 1) if God is the absolute most powerful thing or idea, What does he need us for? What does he need us to serve him for? We can only do so much and we havent even evolved enough still to be the best at the limited things we can do on this Earth.

We live for ourselves and one another. Not for this story book idea of "God" or Jesus.

One should be more concerned with the works of natural law (Karma).

Those who like the tradition of religion, Can learn most ideas of sin and blessing to better align their walk, But to praise a jesus, Or God, Is wasteful and deviates the mind and perception in a nonfunctional way. Universe, "God", Natural law really teaches the lesson to have Good intention in things you do, Help thy neighbor, And learn from perspective and wise man. As there is nothing new under the sun with the limits we have here on Earth, If and when you make a mistake, Is when "God" sends you Thoughts*(which are lessons;perspective), Or the proper/authorized person(human/another God(person with access to God)) to advise you how to go about a better walk in your own life.
Example: If one feels guilty, You recieve thoughts that penalizes and teaches you how to not to go about things.

Everyone has access to this "God", These lessons, Karma, Natural law, Source, Or whatever you choose to call it.

The fact that their are lessons in this world the teaches us good and bad, There is obviously a function that is beyond or above us and what we can do that we are readily able to strive by in each of our lives.

This proves the idea of a "Higher Power"

But the man in the sky that sends people to heaven or hell is an idea that is synonymous to the elementary story of Santa Clause.

Every new day is everyones opportunity to create the idea of themselves in a better light. When being judged it happens hear on earth not in an after life. (Yes your mind and soul keeps going, Energy cannot be created Nor destroyed). No one is who they were 10 years ago so for people to believe they will get sent to a "hell" for a "mistake" is absurd. "God" is more forgiving which is why he allows you a lifetime to get it right.

There is definetly a High Spurce of Energy that help align our walks, But not a God that sees you when your sleeping, Or knows when your awake (Joke lol! )

So my answer is yes and No as a debate of perception from a different Corner to look at it from. I hope that i was able to articulate these ideas as best as i could as well, Thank you for the Debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Notice that my opponent has not interacted with any of the arguments that I presented. So far my arguments that there exists an immaterial, Powerful, Morally perfect, Eternal, Personal creator of the universe have gone uncontested. I provided arguments from the beginning of the universe, The existence of contingent objects, And our firsthand experience of objective moral values and duties to arrive at the conclusion that an entity with these properties exists.

My opponent seems to acknowledge that moral values and duties are objective. In the context of moral good and bad my opponent stated that there is, "a function that is beyond or above us. " This is to say that morality is not just in our head, But that there really are such things as "right" and "wrong" choices. As I had argued in my original post, This can only be so if God exists.

So, Having not provided any objections to my arguments we can ask what arguments my opponent has offered against the existence of God. I detect three claims in my opponents response.

First my opponent suggests that such a God would have no need of us. My opponent, However, Has not developed this thought into an argument. In what way is this meant to suggest that God does not exist? At least in the Christian conception of God we would affirm that God doesn"t need us or our service. It is difficult to see how the claim that God is self-sufficient should be understood to lead to the conclusion that God does not exist.

Second my opponent suggests that it is wasteful or non-functional to worship God. Again, Even if true this seems irrelevant to our debate. How are we to conclude from my opponents aversion to worshipping God that God does not exist? My opponent has not provided an argument here, But just expressed his distaste at the prospect of praising God. Perhaps my opponent means to say that you should not believe in God for practical reasons, Whether or not he really exists. This seems intellectually dishonest, But I will leave it to the audience to decide if they will choose to believe what is false because they find the false belief useful. As for me, I prefer to believe what is true independent of the belief"s utility.

Third, My opponent suggests that the concept of a "man in the sky sending people to heaven or hell" is absurd and that the concept of "hell" itself is absurd. It should be obvious from my original arguments that this is a complete mischaracterization of the concept of God. As an immaterial entity it is nonsensical to conceive of God as a "man in the sky". There is nothing in my arguments that would suggest that God"s primary function would be to send people to heaven or hell. My opponent has not provided any argument here, He has just mischaracterized the concept of God in cartoonish fashion and then called his own cartoon version of God absurd. I quite agree with him here, The cartoonish god he has invented is absurd. He spent time mocking the concept of hell, But he has not developed any argument from the concept of hell that would lead us to the conclusion that the atheistic worldview is true. It is completely unclear how his comments on hell should be taken as arguments against God"s existence.

Remember that my claim is that there are good reasons to believe that God exists and that there are not comparably good reasons to believe that God does not exist. My opponent has not provided any objection to my arguments in favor of God"s existence. Neither has my opponent provided any reason to think that God does not exist. It does not follow from God"s self-sufficiency nor from my opponent"s personal aversion to worship that God should not exist. My opponents cartoon depiction of God does not provide us with any reason to think that the conception of God depicted in the arguments I provided does not exist. If my opponents comments about hell are to be taken as an argument against God"s existence, It remains to be seen how he will develop that argument.

For these reasons I hope you will agree with me that there are good reasons to believe that God exists, And that there are not comparably good reasons to believe that God does not exist.


I am a Female actually Lol! You kept referring to me as "him and he".

My Oponent and I agree on the statement that there is a motion outside of ourselves that consequences our actions good or bad. I conclude that this is simple the function of the Universe, And my oponent Concludes that this can only be a function of a God. My oponent fails to realize and understand the use of language as a tool*

The Universe doesn"t call itself universe, Humans named it that so we can communicate. Same for the word God. God doesn"t call itself God, We call it that. "Universe, Or God doesn"t need the tool of language like humans do because the power and energy of the universe or God is more simply an Existence.

When you focus on language you can identify that if you take the "Names" away, You are left with the focus of Natural Functions. To Conclude the only a body, Or "God" is the reason for such works, Is a very Human conclusion not being able to idea energy"s outside of a "simple/one, Being". It would actually make more sense to conclude that the universe functions morality, At least on Esrth, Instead of giving the praise to what human constructed, A "God"

Universe, Source, Natural Law, Indeed does exist and does function, "God" can not be concluded the same way and is more so theatrical.

I hope I was better able to articulate my argument! :)
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent has begun to focus on our use of language. She is quite right in stating that language makes use of tokens. Words are tokens that represent things in the real world. So the English word "Chair" is a token that represents an object, Perhaps the sort of object you are sitting on as you read this. These tokens are essentially made up, Or constructed, By human beings.

It is difficult to see how anything relevant follows from this pertaining to our debate. Nothing about real world objects, Real world chairs, Follows from manipulating the way that I speak of them. What would be accomplished if I said, "If you strip away the name 'Chair', You just have the function of the object. To conclude that it is a 'chair" is a human notion. We should conclude that the universe functions for sitting, Rather than what a human constructed, A 'chair'. " Would this line of reasoning lead us to conclude that chairs do not exist? Clearly not, And neither should it lead us to conclude that God does not exist.

I am really unconcerned with what label you want to use for the being that I am describing. I have argued that an immaterial, Timeless, Powerful, Morally perfect, Personal creator of the universe exists. The English word "God" best describes an entity like this, Much like the word "Chair" best describes an object fashioned by a carpenter for the purpose of sitting. Redefining or refusing to use standard English words for things seems to just confuse the issue. At any rate, It would be a strange form of atheism that affirms the existence of the kind of entity that I'm describing!

I did not detect any interaction with the cosmological or contingency arguments for God's existence in my opponent's response, But she did suggest that premise 1 of the moral argument was false. She suggested that objective moral values and duties can exist in the absence of God, Which she attributes to the universe. Unfortunately she has not described exactly what she means by this.

If she means to say that moral laws are like natural laws we immediately run into a problem. Natural laws do not *prescribe* behavior, They *describe* how things behave. The law of gravity, For example, Does not direct objects to have attractive forces between them but rather describes the forces that they in fact have. Morality, However, Is very different. We find moral imperatives that we may choose to follow or ignore. Morality would say we should love our neighbor, But we can choose to rob them instead. For this reason moral laws are not at all like natural laws. Moral laws prescribe what we *ought* to do even if we do not. In other words, Moral laws prescribe what often never comes to pass, Events that don't actually occur in our universe. It seems nonsensical to say that the universe prescribes behavior that does not exist within it.

It is also difficult to make sense of the universe, A non-personal collection of particles, Directing me to "love my neighbor". How are we to consider something like the sun or the moon directing me to feed the poor? Even if they somehow could, Why should I be obligated to follow their instruction? How is it that I should have the objective duty to obey the dictates of an impersonal universe? It seems utterly unconvincing to say that we have moral duties to impersonal objects. Consider whether you have a moral duty to a rock in your yard. It seems obvious that you don't. What if the rock were larger? Perhaps the size of a house? Its size would have no bearing on the matter, You still wouldn't have any moral duties to it. Even if you were to blow this rock up to the size of the universe itself, You would still not have any moral duties to it since it is just an inanimate and impersonal object. Neither can you have moral duties to the universe.

Even if the universe could somehow ground morality, The universe began to exist. This implies that the universe could have been different than it, In fact, Is. If the universe is to give rise to morality, However, And the universe could have been different, Then morality could have been different. This means that even if my opponent's grounding for morality were successful, It could *not* give an objective basis for morality. In that case the moral values and duties that we experience would be arbitrary. If things had gone differently in our universe then cowardice may be a virtue, And you may have a moral duty to betray your friends. This is not our experience of morality. In our experience such things cannot be morally good or praiseworthy.

Furthermore, My opponent has not interacted with my arguments against objective moral values and duties in a godless universe. She has yet to show how there can be an objective way that humans "ought" to be in the absence of any objective purpose for humanity. She hasn't shown how to make sense of morally "right" and "wrong" decisions in the absence of the free will to choose between them. Neither has she shown how there can be any objective moral accountability or weight to our moral decisions in the absence of God. As I have argued, Without purpose, Without free will, And without moral accountability there can be no real meaning or weight to *objective* moral values and duties.

My opponent has not shown how our use or manipulation of language can lead to the conclusion that God does not exist. She has not provided any other argument in favor of atheism for us to consider. Neither has she objected to the cosmological or contingency arguments that I laid out in my original post, And so they continue to proceed uncontested. Her attempt to undermine the moral argument has been unsuccessful, And so it seems that this argument proceeds as well.

For these reasons I hope you will agree with me that there are good reasons to believe that God exists and not comparably good reasons to believe that God does not exist.


"God" works through Humans and life on earth not "Chairs". If you don"t understand the use of language that enables us to communicate in comparison to conclude that a God being is human construct then I cannot help ya! But thank you so much for the debate - we can agree to disagree as I conclude that my debate and your debate are still awesome theories (mine more so) Lol! There"s a ton of people that agree with my conclusion and people that agree with yours. Good Luck with everything you believe in! As long as you have good intentions with everything you do you"ll be alright living here!
Debate Round No. 3


She has not interacted at all with the cosmological or contingency arguments that I presented in my original post. Neither has she been successful in grounding objective moral values and duties in a godless universe. This leaves premise one of the moral argument intact. As a result, It seems that all three of the arguments I presented in my opening post remain successful in giving us good reasons for believing that God exists.

My opponent has not given any positive reasons to believe that God does not exist. She seems to simply be asserting that God is just a human construct without giving any reasons for thinking so. I have not detected anything approaching an argument against God's existence in her responses.

For these reasons I hope that you will agree with me that there are good reasons to believe that God exists and not comparably good reasons for believing that God does not exist.


I and others will continue to believe that there is a universe with real function that is factually proven and the belief of God will continue to be an unproven theory where my opponent could not give any Logical or concrete evidence that there is a God somewhere in the universe rather than existing functions that teach us our moral rights. It is evident by construct I did not debate each of his beliefs because I felt the need to just debate my own standpoint than structurally antagonizing his, But my point was made loud and clear and I hope one opens his mind up to more righteous logic on what we debated today.
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
Gods exist on belief alone, There is no proof, Evidence or knowledge of gods. If you don't know if your god does anything perhaps you can present a model of the universe in which your god is "either required, Productive, Or useful. "
Is "Brit milah" when the Mohel uses oral suction to remove the baby's foreskin and give it herpes?
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=TrsENvsJSDE
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
@mosc - Were you attempting to address me? If so, Sorry I didn't read it from a galactic aphid spit like you. Try addressing me your superior and then I might.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
Backward brain. . . When an ant can prove Man exist then and only then shall Man possess the means to prove that the Gods exist. You jabber about "prophecies" NOISE! YOU ignorant fool do not even know how the Torah defines the term "Prophet". Idiot.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
@mosc - As usual a stupid statement from a stupid person. Why? No god has ever been proven to exist. So as always missmedic's questions and statements are very well thought out and correct. What would a god do considering that every god gives a listing of what he or she or it would do. What's left afterward? What does a god do in his/ her/ its spare time considering they are supposed to be omnipotent so they can all go POOF, DONE with what they have claimed they were going to do except with their ridiculous prophecies that they have never set in motion because once again there's no proof that they even exist, Not one teeny little itty bitty bit. . . A pie in the face like your god does unto himself after he takes a dump on himself without using a con-dumb? Obviously.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago

when you become a God then and only then shall you know what Gods do. Your question compares to a dog asking what men do? LOL A totally absurd question.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
If gods exist, What do gods do?
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
An uncaused God is more complicated than an uncaused Big Bang. When it comes to comparing arguments where there is no hope of actually getting any physical evidence, There is a long-standing heuristic to help distinguish between theories, Called Occam's Razor: it turns out that when all evidence is accounted for, The theory with fewest assumptions is more likely to be true. God requires many properties and complexities such as consciousness, Thought, Personality, Creative drive, Love, An internal logic ordering its thoughts so that it can think coherently and rationally, Memory, Etc: All of these properties must have been derived from somewhere. It turns out that God is a vastly more complicated thing than the Big Bang and the fundamental laws of the Universe.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
If god created anything according to a thought-out logical plan, Or, If God had a desire to create anything that wasn't pure random chaos, Then, God's thoughts must have been framed around logic. This logic allowed god to think and create, And, Gave motivation to God. Logic must have been the first cause; but if logic is a requirement for God and existed before God could create, Then God cannot be the First Cause, And therefore, Creator-god theism is false, And atheism is true.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
just to start from the start:
"1)Everything that begins to exist has a cause. ". . . . That makes your god impossible.

Gods are only dreams. That is why we have created millions of them over time.
What evidence do I have that invisible purple elephant with 9 legs do not exist. . .
. . . So as far as we know.
1. Not believing in invisible purple elephants with 9 legs isnt justified.
2. Not believing in invisible purple elephants with 9 legs isnt true.
Therefor not believing in invisible purple elephants with 9 legs is only a belief, Not knowlegde.
Posted by cello242 3 years ago
Props to MBill for thoroughly upholding the Cosmological and Moral arguments for God's existence. I couldn't have been so thorough with defense of the Cosmological Argument and could learn more about the thorough defense of the Moral Argument. I am curious if MBill will bring forward the Teleological or Mathematical or the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. I have a lot to learn about defending these arguments. Bravo!
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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