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

God Most Likely Does Not Exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/19/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,731 times Debate No: 76575
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (26)
Votes (2)




I am willing to have a fun and knowledgeable debate on god's existence with anyone who is willing to have one :).
First Round will be Acceptance
Second Round will be presenting arguments for one's position (No refuting of the other side's points)
Third Round will be refuting the arguments presented by the opposite side
Fourth Round will be showing how the objections/refutation to your arguments from the opposite side are not sound or good and you would explain how.
Fifth Round will be the concluding round

Let me define The God that we are debating here, We are debating the Monotheistic god like the God from the Bible or Koran, A All knowing, All Powerful, All Good and is the source of all morality , Is present everywhere, A Personal being who is interested in human affairs. If you would like to debate a different type of god let me know in your acceptance debate and define what the definition of the god you would like to debate would be.
Good luck! and have fun :)


I accept. To clarify our structure:

R2 Cases
R3 Rebuttals
R4 Defense
R5 Closure

God - An omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, transcendent being.

Burden of proof is shared. I look forward to Pro's case!
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you Pro for accepting this debate :)

I would also define "Exist" which would mean "have objective reality or being". and we know how a thing might be real by trying to test for it.

Before i begin i must say that the Burden of proof is not shared, In rules of Debate it is up to the side that asserts a proposition to make evidence for that case.

I Am a Atheist, and Con which i assume is a Theist brings the claim that god does exist which as a atheist i say i don't accept your claim that god exists.

If someone says Santa clause exists, it is up to someone who says he exists to provide proof that he does otherwise if proof is not met then it is rational to reject the claim that Santa exists. Now the Burden of proof would be shared if the debate was "God does not exist" which i would be presenting a affirmative stance which i would need to bring evidence to support.

Now hopefully Con would bring up some good arguments in defense of god and if he does i might change my mind. But to clarify it is up to Con to bring evidence forward and show that god does exist.

I would also like to ask what religious god Con is trying to defend, Thank you :)

But i will provide some arguments that a god most likely does not exist

My first line of reasoning is that there is absolutely no empirical proof of god found in the cosmos, We know that in order for something to be known to exist we must first see it and test it through the scientific method.

Con might say something along the lines of "God is beyond space and time" but this would leave us open to assume anything is outside our measurable and observable universe.

We could be living in a virtual reality,

Your entire life could be a dream,

We could of been created a few days ago with our memories in place.

We cant really prove or disprove such things and like God it is only an idea and unless Con can show some scientific evidence supporting God or God rearranges the stars and spells out a sentence saying that he exists or something like that. So if there's no way to prove god (Scientifically) then it is a useless proposition.

Let me Quote, "That which is assured without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitches.

I would also like to show how God is just a made up human concept that was used to try to explain natural processes and out of this it was also used to keep people in control.

Since Science continues to answer basic questions about our reality everyday that continues to push God out of the natural world, so much in fact that now religious people are claiming that he is beyond the reach of science he can only be met by faith.

For Example God's used to be in charge of human emotions and the weather but as Con i hope knows that we proved the ancient gods wrong

As God isn't needed to explain certain events and with science we can test to see how certain events come out in a natural way, and it has been a pattern. Everything God used to be explained for can be now explained by natural processes and it wouldn't be a surprise once we figure out how life emerges or how the universe came into existence that those events came about by natural processes.

To Sum up point one, The more we know of the natural world the less relevant a god is needed to explain it.

My Second point is that "God" as a concept even if it existed, we wouldn't know what is the correct god.

Many form's of god exist and the most obvious proof for this is the thousands of god's and religions that have existed throughout mankind's history.

You would think that a all personal being who wants us to have a relationship with him would try to prove his existence to us in the best way he could. Speaking of he, We don't know What a god is in the first place. maybe we were created by a super advanced alien race that created us in a simulated reality, Maybe for all we know God is a girl, God might not even be human at all.

But let's say the God is a White Male, We know still have the trouble of trying to figure out what he wants. Does he want us to blow up buildings and kill all people who reject what he wrote down in a book?

Maybe he just wants us to give him animal or maybe even human sacrifice to please him. Imagine that, Our purpose for this deity is to stroke his ego and sacrifice our human beings to him.

But let's say the Christian god is the real god, and what he wants is for people to believe in him so they can be saved by some "Original sin" But then again i must say, Which form of this Christian denomination is the correct one? Which one correctly shows what this god wants?

So, Which form of the correct version of Christianity is correct?
We Don't know!

The Point being is that even if such a god was proven we wouldn't know anything about him to be relevant and plus this further proves the point that god is just some human invention and like last time i will end with a quote

""We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

To Summarize point two, God most likely does not exist because of the thousand's of times we have been wrong before on god and the sheer amount of god's that are involved just shows on how God is a made up human concept and therefore most likely does not exist.

My Third point is that, at least the god we are talking about a "All Powerful, All Knowing, All Present, All Loving being" is logically impossible to exist.

First of all in the all powerful statement, A being which can do anything he wants, I will bring up some ways on how he can defeat himself in being all powerful

"If God is all powerful can he create a rock so heavy that even he himself can't lift it"? If God can create a rock that He cannot lift, then God is not omnipotent. If God cannot create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent.
Showing that a all powerful being can not exist.

Next i am going to show how a all powerful and all loving being can not exist.

This is commonly known as "The Problem of Evil" It goes like If God is all powerful and all loving wouldn't he in his all loving nature try to prevent the unnecessary suffering of his fellow creations? We as humans experience Suffering and we label it as bad and if a god in his all loving nature wants us to be loved than why make the human race go through suffering?

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Also for most cases the God most people believe in has some sort of tortures afterlife for those who do not believe or behave badly in the real world.

The mere existence of hell shows that a All Loving being can not exist, Even we as fallible and not all loving humans could see that a fellow human no matter how evil should be tortured, much less forever.

Hell was just made up to scare children into believing and causes severe physiological trauma and this what makes people stay religious. If God Sends people to hell not only is he not all loving, He is EVIL.

I'm saying if God is real and with that god comes hell then that god is not all loving.

Also most religious text's show that we have free will, But if God is all knowing and knows what's going to happen ahead of time then how do we have free will?? If the god were talking about is the god of the bible or koran that says we have free will then in order for that to be true the god of the bible or koran cant be all knowing.

God most likely does not exist because there is no proof for him, God has come about as a way to explain the natural order which has been replaced by science. God has also been used to further political agendas which show's in the existence of hell and the political ideas that religions command its followers to do. Also i have shown that some of the attributes we know god has are logically impossible to have.

Can't wait to see the arguments Con brings up that prove the existence of god!

Have Fun and Good Luck! :)


Thanks Pro. I will now lay out my arguments for the existence of God. And to answer my opponent's question, I am a Christian and believe in the God of the Bible. Since my opponent seems to want for me to argue for the existence of a God of a certain faith, then I will argue for the Christian God's existence.

A1. The Beginning of the Universe

This argument is a cosmological one that examines the law of causality and the cause of the universe. It was advanced by Thomas Aquinas, and starts by noting that things move, and that everything moves for a reason, nothing moves by itself. Whatever moves must have a cause, and that cause must have been caused by something else, and so on. Here we have a string of causes leading backwards, but they cannot lead backwards forever. There must have been a first cause to start that casual chain.

Scientists agree that the universe had a beginning, and that this beginning is what is described as the Big Bang, which occurred 13.7 billion years ago[1]. The universe is expanding, meaning that at one point it must have all been compacted together to initiate the "bang" that started the universe that we live in today. Any universe that is expanding must have a beginning.

Since the beginning of the universe must have been started by a cause that lies outside the universe, then this cause must be outside of space and time. According to Einstein's general theory of relativity, all time is relative to matter[2]. Because all matter began 13.7 billion years ago, so did all time. Whatever is responsible for the beginning of the universe must also be extremely powerful.

Thus, a cause that is outside of space and time, is omnipotent (extremely powerful), transcendent, and is the creator of the universe that fits the description of God perfectly is probably the higher power that is up for debate: God himself! To not believe in a first cause is illogical and arguably takes more faith than the alternative: not believing in any cause at all. If this first cause is not God, I don't see what else is more likely.

A2. Fine-Tuned Universe

The conditions for life on Earth are so exact that it is hard to believe that the world was not intelligently designed. The universe is governed by laws and constants so precise that if they were to be altered by the slightest fraction increment, life would not exist. For example, let's take the force of gravity, which is controlled by a constant. If it varied by just one is 10^60 parts, life would not exist[3]. Also, "If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 1060, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible."[4] The fact that the dials are perfectly set suggest that someone was there to set those dials to make the universe as unique and suitable for life that it currently is.

The existence of laws in the universe point to a creator, since there is no reason for laws to have been a necessity. Without a designer to set things in motion, things should not be required to act certain ways.

The numbers and constants that control the universe must be so exact that the tiniest change would've prevented life from occurring at all. These numbers are so insane that it would be illogical to not see this as support for intelligent design and the God hypothesis. Since the universe is so complex and requires a cause, it is indeed likely that an omnipotent (ability to do so) and omniscient (knows what to do) creator God was responsible for it.

A3. Universal Morality

What makes humans unique and different from all other life forms is the moral nature of them. Humans differentiate from even their closest animal ancestors on morality. There are no grounds to believe that chimps feel bad or guilty for doing something they ought not to have done, and they simply cannot comprehend a vision of the greater good for society as opposed to their own desires and instincts. Animals do not understand the difference between right and wrong. All objects operate according to natural laws instead of moral ones. Put a rock on a slanted hillside and it will roll down, not because it has a choice but because it must obey physical laws.

Humans are not like this. In fact, scholars have found no culture, past or present, that does not function according to some system of morality. While some cultures disagree on what moral standards should be, all distinguish "what is" from "what ought to be". This is a very interesting observation because humans are the only species to live like this, as opposed to all other minds of animals. Such moral laws dictate the following:

P1: If a moral lawgiver doesn't exist, moral laws don't exist.
P2: Moral laws exist.
C1: A moral lawgiver (God) exists.

These moral laws must have come from somewhere and presume a lawgiver. This lawgiver must be responsible for the distinction between good and evil, as well as be the source of that which is good. This cause must also have the power to set these moral laws in motion. Since Christians believe God to the source of all good (omnibenevolent), all-powerful (omnipotent), and the creator of the universe along with everything in it including moral laws, then the existence of God is plausible and indeed likely. After all, God is a sufficient explanation for the presence of a moral uniformity in this world.

The unique nature of the human possession of these standards show that there is something special about humans and that God has an interest in how we live. Christians believe this to be true as well.

Altruism also poses a challenge for atheists. If natural selection is true and God does not exist, then humans should act in ways that serve their own self-interest. However, humans often act in ways that do not benefit themselves but other people instead, such as giving up a seat to a stranger on the bus or donating blood. Darwinian evolution cannot explain this. It cannot explain figures such as Mother Theresa dedicating their lives towards helping others, or statements such as Christ's maxim: "love one another". This goes against natural selection and suggests the presence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent figure that exists in our conscious to help us have a sense of virtue and morality that no other creature possesses.

Thus, God likely does exist.

Debate Round No. 2


Thank you Con for bringing up some very interesting arguments forward for the existence of God :).

His first argument goes as follows (Correct me if i'm wrong)
1. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause
2. The Universe began to exist
3. The Universe then must of had a cause.

1. The Argument first of all starts with the assumption that the law of causality applies outside out universe. It might seem logical that in our universe that runs on cause and effect that since our universe began to exist the question is begged to answer as "What caused that" It's a physiological question that comes up into our mind when we think of the beginning of the universe. However as we known physics especially when it comes to quantum physics does not care about our notions of "Cause and effect". The Big Bang has many different hypothesis on how it might of came about but the real answer to how the universe started for right now is "We don't know". However saying "God Did It" could be explained with everything, How did life emerge? God. How Did The weather come about? God. It is a admitted mystery on how the universe began but scientists are everyday trying to figure out the answer to that question and everyday they are getting closer to the answer and i will provide some answers.

Before i do however I want to turn a questions around and say, Who Create God? if everything needs to a cause, what caused god? and if god is exempt why cant the begging of the universe be exempt?

I would also like to say even if the universe began to exist by some causal agent then why must that causal agent be God? Why not a advanced alien race? Or maybe it was multiple supernatural agents. So even if the universe had a intelligent cause that intelligent cause does not have to be god and even if it was god it does not have to be the God that we know of maybe it could of been a Deist God.

There are some leading ideas on how the universe began to exist, First of all the universe did come from "Nothing" but this nothing is not the classical view that we always thought it was. Nothing is a boiling bubbly brew of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence without cause. A lecture from Lawrence Krauss shows how our universe can begin to exist with no cause
Here are some other articles on how the universe could of come from "Nothing"

Another model is that a universe already existed but when it collapsed right back to itself in a form of a "Big Crunch" which is a model on how the universe might end and then when it reaches a singularity point it expands out again in a form of a "Big Bounce" and that starts the universe, So for all we know there could of been millions or even trillions of universes before our's and that can explain why our universe is here.

The last hypothesis i will be presenting which sort of leads us two your second argument is The Multiverse Hypothesis. This Hypothesis states that we are living in just one of many universes and all these universes make up a vast Multiverse. However this could explain how the universe got here and usually it is when two universes clash together and this causes a "Big Bang" the articles below can sum up in a much better way than i can about the Mutiverse Hypothesis.

So i think i can show that just because our universe had a beginning doesn't mean god needs to be needed to explain that cause (If it was caused by anything)
An Overall Video that debunks the argument your brought up can be found here

Your Next Argument is the "Fine Tuning Argument"
Which states that our Universe if so designed that there must of been a designer to "Create" our universe.

2. I will start from the Multiverse Hypothesis since that is where we ended off in the last argument,
The Mutiverse can explain the fine tuning of the universe as it postulates a infinite number of universes each with it's own different laws and different ways of running things and we just so happen to live in a universe that allows our form of life to appear.

The Anthropic principle states that the universe looks like it is fine tuned because if it was not the way it is we would not be here and so we wouldn't ask the question on why it looks like it was designed for us.
The environment does not shape to fit life, Life shapes to fit its environment. We see this done in biological evolution. Where through a process of Natural selection Life forms that can survive the environment Do survive and those that don't don't survive. So it's no surprise that we can fit the environment we are in.

Here's an analogy. I just rolled a die 10 times and got the sequence 3241154645. The odds against that particular sequence coming up are astronomical. Over 60 million to one.

Does that mean that this sequence was designed to come up?

Or think of it this way. The odds against me, personally being born? They're beyond astronomical. The chances that, of my mom's hundreds of eggs and my dad's hundreds of millions of sperm, this particular sperm and egg happened to combine to make me? Ridiculously unlikely. Especially when you factor in the odds against my parents being born...and against their parents being born...and their parents, and theirs, and so on and so on and so on. The chances against me, personally, having been born are so vast, it's almost unimaginable.

But does that mean I was destined to be born?

Or does it simply mean that I won the cosmic lottery? Does it simply mean that my existence is one of many wildly improbable outcomes of the universe... and if it hadn't happened, something else would have? Does it simply mean that some other kid would have been born to my parents instead... a kid whose existence would have been every bit as unlikely as mine?'the_universe_is_perfectly_set_up_for_life'_is_a_terrible_justification_for_god's_existence

I use some argument's and quotes from the article above
and here is a link to a summarizing of my argument

Now even if we were created by something why does this something have to be god? What if a advanced civilization had a computer that simulated a universe that we can live in? Just because our universe is designed does not mean that our designer is God.

Even if God create the universe this would limit the god's power to mere laws. If God is all powerful why would such a god need to have his creative potential restricted to some mere tweaking of some fundamental laws. And even so the best this being can do is create a universe which is almost completely empty with Galaxy's filling up barely 3% of it. In such Galaxy's each have a super massive black hole in the middle with star's and there own planets filling up a lot of the galaxy. "Life" in the grand scheme of things seems to be utterly insignificant, The Idea of a designed universe just for life is absurd and even though we do exist the universe is constantly trying to kill us.

I will end with showing of some bad examples of "design"
The existence of the pharynx, a passage used for both ingestion and respiration, with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of choking.
The human appendix is a vestigial organ with no known purpose. However, appendicitis, an infection of this useless organ, is a certain death without medical intervention.
To Name a few fatal flaws in human design. Theirs a lot more in the link i sent.

3. Now the last argument Con brought up is the morality argument.
Though believe it or not we already have a natural explanation for how humans got morality in the first place.
However to make a better case for how morality came about i recommend to Con and the voters to see this video

Morality is a result of evolution and social condition.
Good things are things that produce a desired outcome
Bad things are things that happen that go against a desired goal
That is all what Good and Evil are, So What are the goal's of society?
Well, as social animals we want to see what actions lead to a better society. That is why when someone say discovers a cure for some disease that is a "good" thing and someone who murders a lot of people is a "Bad" person. This also answers Con's question on why survival of the fittest does not explain why we act for the betterment of others. We act for the betterment of others because we all rely on eachother for goods and services and by tending to not hurt eachother we increase the likely hood of us surviving and passing our gens to the next generation. Morality originated by evolution as a product of survival and since we evolved as a social species we evolved ways to try to decide what makes a good society and how we can cooperate so we can survive and pass on our genes to the next generation.


Thanks Pro.

Burden of Proof

I object to Pro's assertion that the BoP is not shared on this debate. Pro must and should hold at least part of the BoP. My reasons for this are because:

-Pro is on the affirmative side, meaning he should have an obligation to prove the side they are affirming.
-The instigator is making the first claim, and I am simply challenging that claim through process of negation.
-Pro is trying to prove a negative, which is harder to affirm than a positive.
-The BoP was not specified in the first round. I was the first one to specify the BoP, so my rule should be considered over Pro's
-My opponent has already made a case for their position, as if they already have some share of the BoP.

Shifting the BoP onto the Con side is logically fallacious[1] as well as unfair.

There is no reason for Con to have the entire BoP, and I hope the readers note that also. I would've mentioned this in the last round but since rebuttals weren't allowed I hadn't read what my opponent had said.

Evidence of God

Pro's first line of reasoning is that God likely does not because there is no evidence for him. I've already provided evidence in the last round so this thinking doesn't really apply to my side. It also doesn't affirm the resolution. Arguing X is true because there is no proof that X is false is fallacious thinking [2] (with X being God's nonexistence). I agree that it is impossible to prove/disprove the existence of God through reasoning, which is why the resolution is about the likely nonexistence of God. Pro still needs to show the unlikelihood of God's existence in his arguments.

Ancient gods are irrelevant since they don't affirm or negate the resolution. What needs to be shown is that a transcendent being as described in the definitions provided exists, and the presence of other gods doesn't affect that.

My opponent states, "Everything God used to be explained for can be now explained by natural processes". This is false because (1) arguments for God's existence aren't all necessarily related to science and (2) there are many natural processes that haven't been explained yet such as abiogenesis. However, I'm not arguing this at all, and none of my contentions relate to science (with the exception of the beginning of the universe).

Nature of God

I don't see how this next line of reasoning that was brought up is relevant to the topic. Religious pluralism could very well be true, and there doesn't necessarily need to be a "correct version of Christianity". I only need to argue for a deity as described in the definitions. Since the definition of this deity is an "omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, transcendent being.", this could apply to many major religions. I did say that I would defend the Christian deity since it fits the definition and I was requested by Pro to do so. Pro, however, still needs to show how the presence of several religions and sects negates the existence of God. If he doesn't, then this contention is irrelevant.

This point is concluded with the line, "God most likely does not exist because of the [thousands] of times we have been wrong before on god and the sheer amount of [gods] that are involved" How exactly do the ideas of multiple gods negate the existence of a single transcendent being? And how does human fallibility affirm the resolution also? I could just use this argument to say that atheism is probably untrue because humans are fallible, and it would make an equal amount of sense.

Omnipotence Paradox

1) This argument doesn't work because it assumes that an omnipotent being would have to be bound by logic. If such a god is omnipotent, then he would have the ability to create logic and not be bound by it. There is no reason to assume that logic would exist prior to the deity because such a deity would also not need to be bound by space or time, which is the God Christians believe in. In fact, there is no reason to assume God is limited by anything, as he is omnipotent and has no need to be restricted by anything that is outside the supernatural realm such as logic, mathematics, or physics.

2) Even if God is bound by logic, the paradox wouldn't work. In the rock scenario he would be able to limit his power (and stop being omnipotent) in order to have the rock be too heavy for him. If he wouldn't be able to limit his power, he wouldn't be omnipotent in the first place. Such a deity would have every conceivable ability including the ability to restrict himself, causing such a scenario to be able to exist after all.

Problem of Evil

The contention presented is that if an omnibenevolent being exists then suffering also should not exist. There are two kinds of suffering, man-made and natural. Below I will provide my reasoning:

Moral evil

The choices made by people, both good and evil, are an exercise of free will. For God to eliminate moral evil would be to take away free will, which I contend is a moral evil in itself. By restricting agency and taking away all bad that could happen, people would not be able to choose for themselves between good and evil, thus a lack of freedom to choose. Free will is a moral good, of which I am sure my opponent agrees.

Pro does seem to have an objection to this already: "if God is all knowing and knows what's going to happen ahead of time then how do we have free will??" I'm not sure how omniscience negates agency. If God knows everything then he knows what are going to choose, and allows us to choose it anyway. This doesn't disprove a god at all, and I do not see how it does.

Natural evil

1) What we presuppose good and evil to be is entirely subjective. This ties back to my moral standard argument: If God does not exist, then the only basis in which we can object to natural suffering is our subjective feelings. What I don't like isn't evidence for God not existing. God only does not exist if he subscribes to my personal view of what morality is - what I believe good and evil to be. However, there is no reason for us to think that. In the setting in which God exists and is a transcendent being, his standard would be above that of human morality and what we perceive to be right and wrong when our level of understanding is far beneath that of God's.

2) In the Christian view of life, mortal death is not the end of one's existence. An omnibenevolent God does not have to set things right immediately to be all-good, and there's no reason to think such. If an afterlife exists, then we can be assured that all evil that was done will be set right in the future, and that those who suffered and did good will be changed, with justice set right. If Pro asserts that God does not exist based on what occurs in earthly life alone, then the whole picture is not being taken into consideration. As stated before, God must be outside time and thus not bound to control what happens in our physical life alone.


This point is irrelevant. Pro needs to prove that (1) hell exists if God does, (2) God sends people there if they don't believe in him, and (3) torture happens to people there. These are all bare assertions made about theism and don't necessarily apply to believers. There are also some Christians who don't believe in it[3], so it seems like an unecessary generalization.


Debate Round No. 3


Thx Con!

Burden Of Proof
I will be defending that the Burden of Proof is not shared.

1. I am not "Affirming" a statement i am simply saying that the hypothesis put forward which is "God Exists" and i simply reject that notion for a lack of evidence for it and Con needs to show why me rejecting the notion that God exists is unreasonable.
2. However if you want the BOP to be shared i guess we can go by that however it is Con who has to try to convince me that me saying that god most likely does not exist is a unreasonable notion because my claim would not make any sense if there was no Affirmative claim that came before it which in this case was "God Exists" even though Con didn't say that at first my statement that God most likely does not exist has to be logically followed by a affirmative stance which is why i think that Con has to convince me of God's existence since i am simply rejecting the claim that he does exist.

Evidence of God
i want to say that one of my reasons that god most likely does not exist is that there is simply no evidence for his existence. Con does bring forth some evidence but i address his points in the round above. The points he does bring up though are not empirical scientific evidence where we can measure and try to demonstrate God's existence. If God is beyond Space and Time then he his beyond our existence of universe and that means he does not exist

History God's
I am showing that us fallible humans make up stuff all the time as shown in all the historical god's we made up and i am just saying that God is just another fallible human construct. The Beginning of the Universe could of been causes by some advanced race of aliens and not a transcendent personal god so some stuff that aren't explained yet don't need to be attributed to god.

Nature of God
As i said before we were wrong before on the thousands of god's we made up, The God of Monotheism is against really big odds of not being one of the god's that were fake. As you stated " And how does human fallibility affirm the resolution also?" You admit humans are fallible and all the proof we have of these god's are in books written by humans before we knew the earth orbited the sun. Plus Atheism does not make any claims, it rejects the theist notion that god exists and the reason why people are atheists is because of lack of evidence.

Omnipotence Paradox
Saying that God is not bound by Logic is completely nonsensical
Here is a link showing why God can not be outside of logic
So until then all my arguments stand
Plus if god is not bound by logic he is by definition Illogical. So Therefore its illogical to believe in God.

What if he is bound by logic?
In this case he would be limited on what he can do, Let me bring up another example. If this god can do whatever he wants can he create something that even he himself can not not do. If he can do anything but yet there is nothing left for him to do then that's a limitation on what he can do but lets say he can create something that he cannot do even with his all powerful state (without limiting himself) then that's a limit on what he can do. But if its impossible for him to create anything he cannot do then that's a limitation on his part. So Rather he can create something that is more powerful than him in which he is not the most powerful thing or he cant cause he is the greatest possible thing in which that is a limitation on God's part.

Problem of Evil
Con brings up that suffering exists in the world because God gave us free will and that trying to change it would interfere with our free will. I would have to pose the question about why Free will is a good thing, I'm not exactly sure. Since im a determinist i don't believe in free will and Con's argument fails from the start so i need some proof on how free will exists first. So two questions Con needs to answer is, Does Free will exists? and Is Free will the greater good and that it is better for us to have free will and suffer than to not have free will and not suffer?. Even if free will is a great good, that doesn"t mean we should never interfere with it. If we see someone about to commit murder and do nothing about it, it is no defense to appeal to how wonderful it is that the murderer has free will. The existence and goodness of free will is compatible with interfering with it. So why doesn"t God prevent evil actions?

All knowing and no free will
This argument would go away if Con takes that we don't have free will but for right now I'm going to assume that he thinks we do have free will, So Lets assume we do have free will as most religions say we do. The Reason why a All Knowing Being and free will cant coexist is because a All Knowing being knows all of your actions before you do them. A All Knowing God already knows what choices you will make He already knows that you might go to heaven or hell etc. Its Kind of like determinism, All of your actions are already known its just that you have not done them yet.

Natural Evil
I would have to respond by saying that if a god who is personal and wanted is Perfectly Good then he would care for our subjective feelings of suffering, It is true that what we suffer means nothing to the universe at large but if a god exists and at that a all powerful and all Good God. Then this God would not watch by and see us suffer from natural causes. At least a god who is personal and does not want us to suffer.

This Point isn't irrelevant, cause if it is true a All Good God can not exist. You State when talking about Natural evil that

"In the Christian view of life, mortal death is not the end of one's existence. An omnibenevolent God does not have to set things right immediately to be all-good, and there's no reason to think such. If an afterlife exists, then we can be assured that all evil that was done will be set right in the future, and that those who suffered and did good will be changed, with justice set right"

The only way we know the god we are talking about exits is through the books like The Bible, The Koran, The Torah, all other religious books have a different type of god. So Since they only way we know of God's existence in the first place is from the books that humans wrote in we know of what follows if that certain type of god exists.
Here is a link that shows the Bible quotes on Hell,
A lot of these things are really evil and are no way compatible with a All Good God. Unless you discount the holy books that teach this but then again the holy books are the only thing that gave us the idea of The God that we are talking about. And if the Bible is false then is opens up that almost all of Con's augments could be answered with something else, Like Maybe a Deist God who created the universe but does not care about the affairs of humans or it does not have to be a god at all maybe it was some cause that at our point of scientific understanding we just don't understand.

Thank you Con, Cant wait for a response! :)
Some Links
Video on Omnipotence

Video on Free will/problem of evil


Much thanks to Pro. Before I start this round to defend my case that was put forth in the second round, I want to make a note on the burden of proof.


This has been a misunderstanding for Pro. He's stated that I am the one putting forth the proposition that God exists, but that is not the case here. The resolution states, "God most likely does not exist", with Pro on the affirmative side. By asserting this proposition, Pro automatically has some of the BoP, if not all. I am simply negating this proposition, not the other way around. In order to negate the resolution I only need to show that the claim that God's existence is unlikely is false. I can do this by proving that there is a 50-50 chance God exists, or anything higher that, as long as it opposes the notion that there is an unlikelihood of a deity's presence.

Shoving the BoP onto theists 100% of the time is unfair, especially when the opposing side has made the first claim. It is also fallacious, as I described before. There really is no reason for Con, the one who is negating, to have the full BoP, when that invalidates the whole norms of debate.

Beginning of the Universe

The God of the Gaps fallacy is one that some theists have made before, but I certainly have not committed it here. Pro accuses me of making this fallacy when I haven't at all. Here is why the "Goddidit" mentality does not apply to my case: I have adequately shown why God is a probable cause for the existence of the universe in that I have applied his attributes to those of a universal creator.

Requirements for a universal cause:

-The cause must be all-powerful (omnipotent)
-The cause must be outside space and time, as the creator of both
-The cause must be transcendent (beyond human perception)

The God described in the first round matches all of these requirements, meaning that there *is* a likelihood that the cause is the deity described. Pro has yet to challenge my logic on this, besides saying that the cause could be anything. The issue for this is that Pro hasn't shown as any viable evidence to believe that such a cause is something other than God. Which means that you automatically buy my claim over Pro's. There were a couple hypotheses proposed earlier, but I'll show why those are faulty below.

Multiple Universe Theory

There is many problems with this hypothesis, of which I have listed:

1) There is no evidence of the multiple universe theory being true. It is complete speculation.
2) An infinite regression of universes is illogical. Each of those universes needs a cause themselves, and there's no reason to believe that one could actually create another entire universe, let alone one like ours which is governed by laws. There is also no reason to believe that there are a hundred other universes as opposed to a million or a billion.
3) The principle of Occam's Razor states that when there are a variety of possible explanations, go with the one that requires the fewest assumptions. It is much simpler to believe that a God created the universe as opposed to an infinite number of universes in circulation, infinitely spawning new universes which spawn new ones and exist regardless of any laws.

All other hypotheses follow the same line of logic: there is no evidence for them. God, on the contrary, has lots of evidence for him, even if we just consider the beginning of the universe argument.

Pro also suggested that the universe could create itself out of nothing, but never advances this argument. All he posts is a bunch of links, which I'm not going to take the time to go surf through. Pro needs to make his own argument and not try to piggyback off someone else's ideas.

What caused God?

The deity that Christians believe in is an uncaused God, which is not bound by its own creations including the cause-effect principle. Such a deity is outside these things, and the law of causality began when God began to create.

Fine-Tuned Universe

The rolling dice analogy doesn't necessarily show that our existence isn't due to design, nor does any of Pro's arguments, because Pro is looking at it the wrong way. Be assumes that the universe is an accident, but this is not what the anthropic principle teaches at all. There is still massive improbability that needs to be accounted for, and you cannot explain an improbability of this magnitude by simply pointing to our presence on the scene to ponder it. The anthropic principle does not say that it is remarkable that life turned up on our planet given the billions of the stars and other galaxies in the universe. Instead, it says that the formation of the universe with all its galaxies had to be done a certain way in order for it to contain life at all. This also answers Pro's question, "why does the universe have so many galaxies when man has a special place in its creation?" The universe was supposed to be designed the way it was in order for man to exist.

A designed universe doesn't necessarily have to be one in which man is all there is. The same logic of "why is the universe so big" can be applied in reverse: in a universe where man was all that was, why isn't the universe bigger? There's no need to keep man from exploring their looming universe through methods of technology and science.

Pro assumes that design implies that humans must be perfectly created. There is no reason to assert such. In fact, the perfect creation of humans begs the question of why such humans would be created in the first place. While this may be puzzling, the Christian view holds that man was given weakness by God to become stronger and grow throughout their trials.

God & Morality

Pro's response has several flaws in it. In my case, I spoke about how humans have a sense of morality and animals do not. If evolution and natural processes affect both humans and chimps, then shouldn't chimps have a sense of morality too? Why don't they act for the benefit of their species if that's how morality came about for life?

There are many circumstances in which evolutionary processes cannot explain being morally good. My opponent stated that "we act for the betterment of others because we all rely on eachother for goods and services and by tending to not hurt eachother we increase the likely hood of us surviving and passing our gens to the next generation." This line of reasoning doesn't apply to a lot of examples. Let's say I'm on a bus, and I want to give up my seat to a stranger. Are my genes passed on? No. Am I relying on the goods and services of that person? No, I am asking for nothing in return. Am I doing such an act so the stranger won't hurt me? No, there's no reason the person would hurt me either way. This explanation doesn't work, because there are so many acts of altruism that surpass the evolutionary realm of reason. It is a wonder that humans possess morality at all and don't act like their closely related animals.

There is also no reason for me to want to help a sick person who will bring no benefit to me. If someone is ill, and they are 1) not related to me, 2) not possessive of a reward of goods and services that would benefit me if I helped them, and 3) not there to hurt me if I don't help them, then according to Pro's logic, there is no reason why people should lend support to such a person. Yet people still do it all the time; charities spring up, and figures like Mother Theresa dedicate their lives to the poor. When applying Occam's Razor, it makes a lot more sense for a God who is the source of morality and an objective moral standard to exist as opposed to some complex evolutionary process that may or may not have a bearing on morality, which Pro has not yet been able to explain.
Debate Round No. 4


Burden of Proof
Im saying the Burden of Proof is unofficially stated before this debate even started. Even though Con might of not said something in the debate there's a automatic thing Con says before i do. The thing he says is "I believe god exists" and I am simply rejecting his claim in saying that God most likely does not exist now if i said "God does not exist" then the burden of proof would be shared in fact i might have the full burden of proof but i didn't say that. My claim would not exist if the proposition that god exists did not exist. So for my statement that "God most likely does not exists" there must be a statement around like "God exists" in order for the debate topic to exist. So Con needs to show why my disbelief in god is irrational but i will say that i will show evidence on why i rejected the proposition that god exists.

Beginning of the Universe
Con asserts that He is not committing the God of the gaps fallacy when after he says that he commits the very same fallacy. Con needs to show why those are the requirements for creating the universe
1. All powerful
2. Outside of space and time
3. Transcendent
We simply don't know enough about the beginning of the universe to make any claim about it. We do have some ideas which i mention but we don't have a theory of the beginning. So instead of taking the approach that is honest which is we simply don't know Con asserts God into the gaps of science.

BigBang =/= A Beginning
Just because there was a expansion of space in time in a theory called inflation
That does not mean that there was a beginning.
Our concept of time brakes down so much at the Planck epoch that the concept of a beginning don't make any sense at all. In fact as i pointed out a lot of physicists are bringing up ideas showing that our universe did not have a beginning but instead of so small that time and beginning start to not make sense
In fact even if we stick with the model that most scientist's use for the big bang this does mean that there was a absolute beginning, What they say is that the universe came about in a inflation from a singularity where time was infinite so the entire premise that the universe had a beginning does not make sense.

Multiverse and other explanations
Let's grant that the universe did have a beginning, I have argued that even if it did inserting god is committing a logical fallacy and is scientific unprovable so i brought up some ideas that scientists have used to try to explain the orgin of the universe.
1. The Multiverse does not have a lot of empirical evidence yet but it does (Unlike God) have reason to be provable and i can show some reasons we can prove the mutiverse
For Example they have proven what they call "Gravitational waves" which is a sliver bullet proof of inflation which i explained is what scientist's use when describing on how the universe came into being and when inflation is true that means that the possible of a multiverse now has some evidence to back it up. Now God on the other hand does not have any evidence and Con says that he does but does not bring it up any (Empirical scientific proof)

2. If you want me to spell out a entire theory of science in a few words, Well i'll try my best. Though to get a better depth on how the universe created itself from nothing i suggest voters check out the links i sent and Lawrence krauss's book "A Universe from Nothing" and his lectures on his book. In Short "Nothing" is not what we think it is, It might go against common sense to think nothing is something else but we must change our beliefs to align with reality. Nothing is a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence, This is true because even at subatomic level we have seen matter and energy out of nothing. So as i said we don't have a theory on how the universe started but scientists are getting better and better data to figure out how the universe started
Nothing is a topic that goes beyond our common understanding. And we should face the facts that nothing isn't nothing and that this nothing could of created the universe without any form of divine intervention. We will march forward and soon and maybe within our lifetimes we will be able to create a theory of the beginning that fully explains the facts that we are collecting at this very moment and figure out how the big bang started and how the laws of physics came about.

What about God?
If Con apply's his logic that everything needs to have a cause then god needs to have a cause. However there is a law of causality in our universe this does not apply outside our universe and which is why it does not make sense to use it as a argument to how the universe began since the universe did not exist then. If god did have a cause then what caused that cause? so then you have a infinite regression.

Fine Tuning
My Argument that the fine tuning is a result of chance has not been refuted yet by Con. He says that saying that it just happened this way out of all the other ways does not count. However if the universe say ended up another way and say let the existence of fire monsters come about and these fire monsters thought, Well i exist in this universe therefore this universe was designed for me!!. When in reality that universe was the way it is. Life evolves with the environment not the other way around, proof of this is found in evolution where life that can survive in its environment survive and the ones that cant don't survive so its no surprise that animals can survive on earth. I also showed how the multiverse might exist and that will explain the fine tuning by saying that we just exist in one of the universes that permit our existence. I will also bring out the puddle analogy , Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn"t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it"s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything"s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. If the universe weren"t fine-tuned, we wouldn"t be here to observe it. So we shouldn"t be surprised by fine-tuning.

Con saying that animals don't have morality is completely false, Research in chimps have shown that in social conditions some of these chimps will sacrifice some of there own freedom in order to maintain a good social order in order to raise there young better. and Piranhas who's main goal is to eat other prey in groups but notice how they don't eat eachother. That's because they don't use there killer instinct when eating there fellow piranha because they want to survive as a group

Also the reason why we help other people is because we have a emotion called empathy which gives us beneficial chemicals in our brain that make us feel better and we evolved empathy in order to find a better way to interact with our species, If caring for the feelings of other humans is something that makes us humans than psychopaths should not be human but we know that psychopaths simply don't have empathy and we can measure this by looking at there brains and see how there is a difference between a psychopaths brain and a regular persons brain and we know simply that the reason why people have varying amounts of compassion is because of their brain chemistry and those that have none are known to be psychopaths and as a social species we prefer humans who have empathy because those emphatic people tend to help other human beings and thus increase the survival ability of the whole group and thus in turn they help that individual out.

Morality however is subjective and is ever changing throughout the times we see this if we look back at history and how we have our own personal options on certain subjects. However we see no evidence of "Objective Morality" and thus we can conclude that god does not exist because objective morality does not exist

However if morality came from god then it fails to account for the euthyphro dilemma which the question goes like this
"Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?"
Rather there morally good cause god just made them up or there good independent of god and then the whole notion of objective morality falls apart this video sums it up pretty well

Also Even if god was the source of all morality then it does not explain the evil things he does in the bible and when he sends people to hell,


I enjoyed the opportunity to debate this topic with Pro. Since this is the last round, and no rules exist for this round, I will be fair and address Pro's initial case before concluding.


The assertion of "God exists" is not present here. The only claim that is relevant is the title of this debate, which I am aiming to negate. I can negate it just by showing that God has a 50% likelihood or more of existing, and I have no proposition to affirm. If I can do this, I win.

Nature of God

- Evidence for the existence of a deity is all that can be argued on either side, so for Pro to assert that no evidence exists and use that as an argument is nothing more than an assertion. I could say "evidence exists" and use that as an argument, but it would be just as nonsensical.

- "If God is beyond Space and Time then he his beyond our existence of universe and that means he does not exist" -Pro

Non sequitur. Being outside of the universe does not imply non-existence, and it's an invalid conclusion to draw from no premises.

- The fallibility of humans does not have anything to do with God's existence. Humans may or may not be right, but whether they are has nothing to do with philosophizing. By Pro's logic, we can't trust anything humans have said in history.

Omnipotence Paradox

- The argument of God not being bound by logic was never responded to by Pro. He posted a link, but this doesn't count as his own argument. Thus, it is dropped and conceded.

- Limitation of one's power is definitely a possibility. Pro's response is unclear here, but from what I can derive from his arguments it seems that the initial contention was simply restated, as proven with this line: "But if its impossible for him to create anything he cannot do then that's a limitation on his part." As I said before, God could attempt a task that he cannot do by limiting his power once creating the task in order to be unable to do it. This has already been refuted.

Problem of Evil

Moral evil

- The ability for one to choose their own actions and make their own decisions presumes the existence of free will. The lack of free will would mean that individuals would not be able to make these decisions, but they so have the ability to choose. So yes, free will exists.

- The existence of free will means one *can* interfere with others' choices, and that they can use their agency to do so. Pro asserts that if free will exists, then we should let criminals commit crime. This is ridiculous - I can use my free will to interfere with their harmful choices. We should seek to keep people from committing harmful actions, and we already have the power to prevent such actions from taking place. The existence of agency allows me to decide for myself what is right and what is wrong, without God forcing me to make the decisions he wants me to make. The latter scenario restricts freedom, while the former doesn't. Thus, the ability to have more of a choice would be more of a moral good, and Pro has not countered why such freedom is worse than no free will.


Again, Pro never shows why free will and an omniscient deity cannot exist. He states that a deity would know all of one's actions, but never explains why this negates free will. Thus I dismiss this argument.

Natural Evil

- A transcendent deity would have a standard of morality far above those of humans. Having him care about our perceptions of suffering does not mean he must succumb to our views. For example, a parent may punish a child for reasons of them needing to learn a lesson and grow from theibased.t mistakes. The child may have subjective feelings of suffering, but the parent does not give in to the child because of that. The same is somewhat true with God and morality: suffering may exist to better us for the future and help us to be good to others because of our understanding of what suffering is. This is the Christian view of such circumstances.

- Pro dropped my response about the afterlife. Extend it.


The existence of such a place doesn't necessarily mean that God is not all-good. If God is all-good, he must also be a just God, so that a standard of morality is upheld. When laws are broken, punishments are set. This is to put evil at bay so that good may exist unharmed.


In this debate I have provided valid arguments for the likely existence of God, and have knocked down the opposing arguments. Pro's contentions are also full of logically fallacies, such as non sequiturs, red herrings, bare assertions, shifting the burden of proof, and the negative proof fallacy. Thus, I rest my case. Even if our arguments are equal, I still win based on the resolution claiming the likely non-existence of God.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
RFD (Pt. 1):

I found this an interesting debate, so this is going to be one rare non-request vote of mine, especially since God-debates are my forte. First, I shall address a plaguing issue of this debate.

== Burden of Proof ==

Pro asserts that *Con* is making an affirmative assertion that God exists, thus has the BoP. As Con notes, this is absolutely absurd. Pro is the one making the affirmative assertion that God doesn't exist, thus the BoP must be shared. Pro objects to Con's dismissal of the BoP claiming that he is just rejecting the assertion of God due to lack of evidence. But, as Con notes, *Con* is the one negating the proposition, not Pro, thus the BoP has to be shared due to the inductive nature of the resolution. Pro just keeps repeating his previous argument, and, as Con shows, the assertion "God exists" is not present here: only Pro's positive assertion. I am inclined to agree with Con that the BoP is shared.

== Arguments ==

1. Evidence

Basically, Pro's argument is lack of empirical proof, thus the hypothesis is best rejected. He applies Hitchens' razor to say that the assertion of God can be dismissed if no evidence is presented. It goes on to say God is just a human concept, thus lack of evidence implies lack of likelihood. Since God isn't necessary, he likely doesn't exist, by this argument.

Con raises two objections: (1) the arguments Con presented *are* evidence, so there *is* evidence, and (2) Pro commits fallacy of negative proof since its Pro's assertion. So the argument just dissolves into Con's case.
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
(Pt. 2)

2. Nature of God

The argument is basically contradiction between various religions implies confusion, thus lacking a coherent definition of the term "God" and entailing theological non-cognitivism. I think the argument in itself is insufficiently explained. The debaters *must* presume, with their arguments, that every judge is tabula rasa, i.e. has no outside knowledge of the topic, and the argument fails. While I understood the argument referring to the lack of explanatory power, the term "explanatory power" isn't even mentioned throughout the debate. Voters, under their obligation to act as blank slates, shouldn't vote on arguments that are insufficiently warranted (explained), so I wouldn't have voted based on this argument anyway.

Nonetheless, Con refutes this argument soundly, noting that there is a *clear* definition of God given, and if that God is affirmed, Con's BoP is. Additionally, the argument doesn't even refute God.

I think Con's cogent objections easily refuted this argument.

3. Omnipotence Paradox

Pro presents the classic paradox of the stone, i.e. "Can God create a rock he can't lift?" Con's objections: (1) an omnipotent God isn't bound by logic, and (2) God is omnipotent if he can limit his power; it's not like he's omnipotent forever. Pro *only* provides a source refuting (1), but sources *are not*, and *cannot*, be considered arguments, thus I can't vote on the source.

Pro dismisses (2), saying then God would be illogical by definition, but Con notes that Pro gives no reason to believe limitation of power is incoherent. Thus, I'm inclined to stand with Con's objection. Con wins omnipotence paradox.
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
(Pt. 3)


Pro presents the problem of suffering and the problem of evil, using Epicurus' formulation of the argument, saying an omnibenevolent God would have to prevent suffering. Pro also presents problem of hell. Con argues: (1) free will defense; free will explains evil, (2) "good" and "evil" are only coherent if God exists via. moral argument, so the argument is question begging, (3) POH is irrelevant since God's existence doesn't imply Hell's existence.

Pro argues free will is question begging since it rejects determinism, and then posits free will vs. suffering comparison. Next, Pro argues omniscience paradox: omniscience contradicts free will. Pro *drops* moral argument objection, but I can only assume it's addressed under moral argument.

5. Beginning of the Universe

Con presents KCA, deductive conclusion that the universe was caused. Then says cause is God. Pro's objections are very cogent and strong. He says we have no reason to believe the Law of Causality applies outside the universe, so a beginning doesn't imply a cause. Then, he shows possibility of multiverse, and multiple Big Crunch possibility.

Con responds saying properties of the cause equal the properties of God. Then, he says the multiverse hypothesis and Big Crunch hypothesis are illogical because they entail an infinite regression. But he *drops* Law of Causality objection. Pro himself notes that Krauss' evidence and Law of Causality objection are dropped.

I think that objection drives me to forward the KCA to Pro.
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
(Pt. 4)

6. Fine-Tuned Universe

Con presents classic FTA. Pro objects with dice reductio, and Con's only insufficiently explained response is "there is still massive improbability". The dice reductio is *entirely cogent*, and virtually dropped by Con who says there's a massive improbability. As Pro notes, the dice reductio refutes the improbability itself, and I think definitely and easily refutes FTA.

7. Morality

Con argues that the existence of morality entails a moral lawgiver, i.e. God. Pro asserts morality is a result of evolution and social condition. Con responds saying humans have greater moral conditioning than other species, and that a non-beneficial social "conditioning" is incoherent. Pro says other species *do* have morality, and that empathy is biological in nature.

While the empathy argument *would* have refuted morality, it was a *new* argument presented in R5, where Con couldn't raise any further objections to the new rebuttal to MA. So the empathy argument has to be discounted. This means I award morality to Con.


I vote Con *only* on the basis of morality. All other arguments were refuted by either side, but the empathy argument of Pro's came up too late, and was insufficiently explained. As such, morality managed to demonstrate a God of some envisioning.

Ergo, I vote Con.
Posted by Varrack 3 years ago
@salam - thanks for that amazing RFD!
Posted by salam.morcos 3 years ago
I will never do an RFD ever again on a God debate. It's too long.

@TJ - AFTER you're done with your RFD, I want your feedback on mine.
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
Will have an RFD up by tomorrow
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
OK salam.morcos messaged me to vote on this so I'll prepare an RFD now
Posted by salam.morcos 3 years ago
I am planning to vote on this debate. I am a theist (former atheist), and I am extremely unbiased. But to be fair, I will ask another atheist (TJ) to vote on this, and I also think he's an unbiased voter.

Anyways, good debate overall. I enjoyed reading it.
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
Just remind me to vote on this please
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 3 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by salam.morcos 3 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: This was a close debate. Too many mistakes.