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

God exists

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 3 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 9/3/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,171 times Debate No: 79342
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (35)
Votes (3)




This debate is currently impossible to accept. Please post in the comments if you would like to debate this topic and I will choose an appropriate debater. If you accept this without my permission all votes should go to Con (me).

As con my possition in this debate is against the existence of God therefore my opponent will be arguing that God does exist.

Debate Structure

Round 1:

Round 2:
Main points and justifications (pt 1)

Round 3:
Main points and justifications (pt 2) + rebuttals*

Round 4:
Rebuttals + any additional arguments (optional)

Round 5:
Additional rebuttals and conclusion (no new arguments)

** this is optional since you may not have enough characters to do this **


No trolling

No forfeiture

You must follow the debate structure

All other basic DDO rules apply



- the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. (Judaism, Christianity or Islam only).

Exists - To be alive



I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


I will begin my argument by contradicting some of the most frequently used arguments used to prove Gods existence.

Argument 1:

“Morality stems from God, and without God, we cannot be good people”

Religion is frequently help up as a model of moral behaviour. Many holy books contain rules for how people must live in order to reach Heaven or some similar afterlife. Failure to follow those rules often means eternal banishment and punishment. A person who follows these rules and is “godly” is also presumed to be a moral, upright person, whereas atheists are frequently viewed with suspicion. After all, with no God to tell you how to behave, what’s to stop a person from doing whatever they like? A poll conducted by Canadian psychologists even placed atheists as more untrustworthy than rapists in the USA and Canada, showing that atheists are among the least trusted people even in North America.

In reality, there’s no evidence that atheists as a group are any more untrustworthy or immoral than any other group. There are dishonest atheists just as there are dishonest Christians and Muslims, and there are atheists who are paragons of good behaviour just like any upstanding religious person.

Religions do seem to incite violence. This does not always imply a direct causal relationship between religion and violence, yet, this is the opposite of what you’d expect if morality really did stem from God.

Religious texts are generally ancient, and they reflect the values of the times when they were written. Over time, our views of what is acceptable shift as our cultures progress, which makes many things found in the Bible or Quran seem outdated and highly problematic.

Consider, for example, the issue of slavery. Although there are some people who still believe that slavery is moral, the vast majority of religious people are unlikely to admit support for the ownership of another person. Nevertheless, the Bible has many references to slavery, carefully detailing the rules for proper slave ownership.

For example, in the Old Testament, Leviticus 25:44-46 explains that you can take slaves from neighbouring nations but not enslave your own people: “Your male and female slaves are to come from nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.”

Slavery isn’t the only questionable practice condoned in the Bible. The death penalty was also wielded quite liberally in biblical times, and death was a popular punishment for sins in the Old Testament, including violations such as adultery (Leviticus 20:10), homosexuality (Deuteronomy 22:13-21), breaking the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14-15) and more.

In Islamic teaching, it’s made quite clear that anyone who turns away from Islam should be put to death. Within some of the most trusted and authoritative Hadith collections in Islam, which is the main source of Islamic laws and ethics, Prophet Muhammad is quoted as calling for the death penalty against apostates,

‘The Prophet said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qis-as for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam and leaves the Muslims.”’

Many religious critics are quick to jump to the defence of their given holy book by insisting that passages like these are taken out of context. Although it is interesting to note that curiously, many believers do not demand more context when mentioning verses describing love, charity or any other positive aspect of their scripture; verses are only viewed as being out of context when the content is unflattering for believers.

Arument 2

"Science cannot explain the complexity and order of life; God must have designed it to be this way."

Arguably the earliest function of religion was to explain natural phenomena that primitive man could not otherwise understand. Lightning storms and volcanoes, for example, are natural forces that were once attributed to deities. Now that scientific progress has made it clear how and why many of these things occur, a God is no longer required to explain them.

The same is true for many other natural processes, and as the scientific method manages to come up with more models with better explanatory and predicative capabilities for such phenomenon, supernatural explanations prove themselves more inadequate, to say the least. Even though there are things in the world that we don’t yet understand and may never truly understand, there’s no reason to simply make up an explanation. In effect, belief in God is not really an answer; it’s simply a way of saying, “I don’t know.” Yet, the existence of deities raises more questions than it solves.

In 1802, philosopher William Paley introduced “The Teleological Argument” in his book “Natural Theology” In it, he argues that the universe must have been designed by an intelligent creator because it is too complex to have arisen by chance. To illustrate this, he makes an analogy to a watch: if you’re walking on the beach and find a watch, you know from its complexity that a watchmaker must have created it. It would be absurd to think that the watch could have sprung up spontaneously. By his logic, complexity implies design.

Since then, many scientists and philosophers have tackled this issue and have shown that complex systems can arise without a designer. Evolution by natural selection is one such system. A mathematician, John Conway, created a model, called: “{The} Game of Life”. The game shows how complexity can arise from a few simple cells following basic mathematical rules. In the game, a player establishes an initial pattern of “cells,” then sets them loose to multiply and die according to basic mathematical calculations. For populated spaces:

  • If a cell has one or fewer neighbors, it will die.

  • If a cell has four or more neighbors, it will die.

  • Cells with two or three neghbors will survive.

    For empty spaces:

  • Cells with three neighbors become populated.

    Argument 3

    "It is safer to believe in God than be wrong and go to Hell"

    A mathematician and philosopher, Blaise Pascal introduced an argument that would come to be known as Pascal's Wager. His argument discusses the issue of religious belief from a mathematical standpoint, determining that the cost of belief is lower than the cost of atheism. The wager takes the following format:

    - If you believe in God and he does exist, you will be rewarded with eternity in Heaven

    - If you believe in God and he does not exist nothing will happen to you

    - If you reject belief in God and he does exist, you will be doomed to an eternity in Hell.

    - If you don't believe in God and he doesn't exist, nothing will happen to you.

    Based on these suppositions, Pascal reasons that it's always safer to live as though God is real because if there is a God and you believe in him, the benefits are infinite. If you believe in God and turn out to be wrong, you will have lost nothing; if you don't believe in God and turn out to be wrong, the consequences are dire.

    Pascal was an admittedly brilliant mathematician, and his contributions to mathematics are valuable. As a theological argument, however, Pascal's SWager breaks down for several important reasons. First, it's important to realize that the wager does nothing to prove the nature of God. It's not an argument for the existence of God at all, actually; it's an argument against atheism based on the relative opportunity versus cost of belief.

    Second, you must recognize the limitations of Pascal's premise. As a Christian apologist, his argument works only for the Christian God. It ignores the possibility of any other deity and assumes that the motives of God are consistent with the teachings of basic Christian theology. Viewed in the context of world religions, the wager falls apart completely. The wager is based on the mathematic analysis of four outcomes. However, if you throw the multitude of world religions into the equation, the premises and mathematic analysis becomes much more complex and convoluted, making your chances of a successful wager significantly slimmer.

    Multiple religions exist thoughout the world, and the messages of most are at odds with each other. Among the tow largest religions (Christianity and Islam), it's clear that worshiping the right deity in the appropriate way is crucial to finding salvation. To enter Heaven as a Christian, you must be "saved" by believing in Jesus as your savior. According to some verses in the Quran, non-Muslims will end up in Hell. All of this means that belief in God alone is not sufficient to enter Heaven. It also means that if you happen to believe in the wrong God, you can still end up in Hell - even if you follow the tenets of your chosen religion perfectly.

Pascals wager assumes a very narrow and specific definition of God. Even if there were a God, there is simply no way to know that the assumption laid out in the wager are actually accurate. For example, why would an all powerful and benevolent deity banish his creations to Hell for disbelief? It's equally likely that a deity might reward his followers for being skeptical, in which case Pascal's wager crumbles.

I look forward to reading rebuttals and arguments from my opponent in the next few rounds.

All of the sources are in the comments due to the character limit.



Contention 1: The Ontological Argument

Dating as far back as the Saint Anslem, as this argument has been honnored by philosphers on every side of the spectrum. I shall be definding the version of this argument that was made popular by Alvin Plantinga. His model uses the S5 model and thus is immune to the popular arguments against that philospher Kant has made and hence making Kant's argument void. I shall also argue another point made famous by William Criag: The Argument is bellow.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. [1]

Here we can see that we can already see that on face value that it is possible that God exists. Due to this small plausability we can see that at any slight chance proves that there is a God in some reality and hence this reality. In order for Con to disprove God he must show that it is impossible in every possible circumstance. Now as we look at the premise 1 and 2 we can see that God can exist which leads me into my S5 argument.
S5: If possibly necessarily P, then necessarily P [2]
We can see with this applied to the above portion of premise 1 we can see that God can exist simply with their being a possibility and the only way to negate it would be to show that there is no possible way that God can exist in any given circumstance. When we follow this string of beliefs we can see that since God can exist in other worlds he can exist in reality and thus actually exists.This excludes metaphysics as we can see that if we observe a black hole it sucks in matter and a worm hole allegedly leads back out. But what if we look at how Neil Tyson depicted it as inside the black hole in his novel, Death by Black Hole, purposed that actually inside a black hole could cause another universe from the hot matter that inside. We cannot find God as the original black hole has evapporated via Hawking Radiation and there is no way to get back to him (except through death, but that's an entirely different debate) so we can only wait for us to be contacted by him.

A statement is a priori = one can see that it is true using pure reason and given an understanding of the meanings of the words in it. We don’t need empirical evidence to know that it’s true. A priori statements seem to be true necessarily.

A statement is a posteriori = our evidence for its truth is empirical, or based on data that we receive via sense experience.

1. God, by definition, is the greatest possible being.
2. A being that does not exist in the real world is less great than a being that exists necessarily, or in all possible worlds.
3. Suppose that God (the greatest possible being) does not exist in the real world.
4. If the greatest possible being does not exist in the real world, then He is not as great as the possible being who is just like him but who does exist in the real world.
5. But the greatest possible being can’t be less great than some other possible being. To say that “the being than which none greater is possible is a being than which a greater is possible” is to say something that’s necessarily false, because self-contradictory.
6. The supposition in 3 is false. God does exist in the real world. And he exists not contingently, but necessarily, or in all possible worlds. It is impossible for God not to exist. [9]

Here we can see that Point 6 is completely true. If we had this maximumly great being of some sort we could see that even if we took him out of our universe that there would still be a Maximumly Great Being. Thus we can simplify to see that when combined with the S5 argument of the Ontoligcal argument that God is Possible in All worlds and because of this we can see that it's a posteriori for God to Exist and arguing otherwise is futile.

Contention 2: Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (which I'll start refurring to as the KCA in order to save space) was created by William Lane Craig and is a simple theory that I have bellow.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. [3]

The first premise is true by the very laws a physics as it is a law of Conservation of Mass as it shows that Matter cannot be neither created nor destroyed. Meaning that the Universe cannot have been spontanously created as Big Bang opponent Flyod has stated. We can also see that things are not spontanous here. Like why doesn't the Earth suddenly expload? This is because the very laws of Physics binds and restrics nothingness so we can see that for one to question the first premise would be to question regualrity.

Now let us move on to the second premise here which is backed both by scientce and philosophy. Craig agrues using the Brode-Gruth-Velikum Theory that through the use of Red shift which shows that the universe is exspanding we can actually see that the universe, even if it is part of some multi-verse, still had to be created. [3] The philosophical side of this argument is that though many argue that the universe may be infinate the thing is that it is highly unlikely for things to exsist in an infinate chain and are thus had to have a starting finite point somwhere. Even if we look at Tyson's theory on how this universe started and that it is a multiverse we can still see that the universe, this one, had a beginning.

Contention 3: TA Arguement

Here we can observe Saint Thomas Aquinas's theory on teleologic which is the ultamate causes of objects or actions in relation to their ends. This is from the 5th of Thomas Aquinas's theories explaining the existance of God. His theory is bellow.

1. If teleology exists, then an ordering intellect exists.
2. Teleology exists.
3. Therefore, an ordering intellect exists.

Here for the first part we may see that teleos exists on the basis that there must be intentionality and this exists in the mind. Hence one can see that if teleology truely exists then there must be intellect for it to be grounded to in the end. For this I site Edward Feser who states, "Where goal-directness is associated with consciousness, as it is in us, there is no mystery. A builder builds a house, and he is able to do so because the form of the house exists in his intellect because it is instantiated in a concrete particular object. And of course, the materials that will take on that form also exist already, waiting to take it on." [4]
So ask yourself, does teleology exist? Obvious, does the heart beat and pump blood because it just happens? No, it has a valid purpose of pumping blood to keep you alive. Without teleology there would be no purpose. We can see that from everyday occurance by using this. I mean how else are we to say that a carborator needs replaced if it does not have a purpose? When we observe other things that are inorganic like the Nitrogen and Water Cycle we can see that they too have purpose and are thus teleological by nature. [5]
We can see that since all teleology has to be grounded to a singel being in the universe. It is obvious that this high being has nothing else higher than it and is thus the greatest being in the universe which it would make sense to call this said being God.

Last year scientists have actually found ripples in time and space continum. I believe that it actually helps prove the existance of God than disproves it. We can see after the Big Bang there was gravitational strips in the universe that ripped it appart in seconds. [6] We can actually see that a very very simplified version of this is in the Bible.

6. Everything that had a beginning in time has a cause.
7. The universe had a beginning in time.
8. Therefore the universe had a cause.
9. The only thing that could have caused the universe is god.
10. Therefore, god exists. [7]

For the 6th premise we have already found that is true, so let's move on to the next premise.

Now for the 7th premise Ross writes this in support.

"By definition, time is that dimension in which cause-and-effect phenomena take place. No time, no cause and effect. If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and preexistent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who god is and who or what god isn't. It tells us that the Creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe." [8]

Here we can see that there has to be an entity controlling time and something had to come before time. That the entirety of everything had another dimension and this God was in another dimension and created the universe and all the laws of physics that we are still yet to even begin to comprehend. He later to go on to further back this up by providing Biblical verses and stating that it has to be that God has another time dimension and this is one of the reasons that we do not have concrete proof of him yet as we have yet to be able to travel in other dimensions. [8]

Sources in comments section due to character limit.
Debate Round No. 2


Since rebuttals are optional for this round I will refute both R2 and R3 arguments in R4 no this round but do not let this stop my opponent from refutting my R2 arguments in this round.

Argument 4:

"There is no evidence that God doesn't exist"

When confronted with criticism, theists will pull out this argument in an attempt to shift the burden of proof toward the critic. Although this tactic can feel very clever, it opens a door to absurdity. This argument seems to suggest that we believe in everything, even things we have yet to think about, until that belief is proven false. That's simply not a logical way to perceive reality. If the criteria for something being accepted as true was based purely on there being no evidence against it, an endless number of hypothetical objects could suddenly become "real." This has been the source of numerous playful thought experiments by skeptics around the world:

- The flying spaghetti monster, who created the earth with his noodly appendage.

- The dragon in Carl Sagan's garage, a thought experiment he describes in The Demon Haunted World. The dragon is invisible, floats in the air, generates no heat and is incorporeal, thus evading all forms of sensory detection.

- Russell's Teapot, a hypothetical teapot that you cannot prove isn't orbiting the sun.

Of course, all of these examples were designed in good fun. Bertrand Russell does not actually believe that there is a teapot orbiting the sun. However, ther is no way to definitively prove that these fanciful claims aren't true, which demonstrates the total absurdity of this line of thinking. Carl Sagan's invisible dragon argument shows the futility of ad hoc arguments in explaining reality. An ad hoc argument is one that makes excuses to rationalize away the valid criticisms of an argument without any evidence to support it. When the claimant desperately wants something to be true, she'll often employ an ad hoc argument to counter any arguments to her claim.

The dragon in Carl Sagan's hypothetical garage cannot be seen because it's invisible. A skeptic might press for evidence. But its footprints cannot be observed because it hovers in the air, and the dragon's invisible fire is heatless. A rationalization can be formed to explain the absence of any form of evidence. These rationalizations don't make the original claim true. Indeed, it's easiest to make ad hoc arguments about things that don't really exist because that frees you up to create increasingly fanciful arguments.
When applied to theism, this ad hoc reasoning can be seen in the increasingly vague descriptions of God. As theists may say: God cannot be comprehended or described. This falls under the ad hoc fallacy. Such rationalizations make God so vague that it becomes impossible to refute the idea, but they get the claimant nowhere closer to proving his claim

Disbelief is not the same as belief in something else

Arument 5

" The laws of logic prove the existence of God"

One relatively new counterargument to atheism is the so-called transcendental argument for God, or TAG, as popularized by Matt Slick of Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM). Although the transcendental argument for God as displayed on the CARM website is fairly new, the ideas behind it trace back at least as far as Immanuel Kant. Kant introduces the idea and structure of the transcendental argument using certain logical truths or laws that are universal, unchangeable and absolute.

What TAG actually says

From a philosophical view, there are three logical absolutes:

1) Law of Identity: Something is what it is and isn't what it is not. Something that exists has a specific nature. For example, an apple is that apple, and a rock is that rock. In other words, whatever is, is.
2) Law of Non-contradiction: Two opposing statements cannot both be true. For example, "this is an apple" and "this is a rock" cannot both be true if the object in both statements is referring to the same thing. In other words, nothing can both be and not be.
3) Law of Excluded Middle: A statement cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense. For example, the statement "this is an apple" is either true or false; an object being an apple can't be both true and false at the same time. In other words, everything must either be or not be.

These laws are necessarily absolute. They are always true, and there can be no exceptions. Someone who says, "This rock is an apple," makes no sense, as that statement defies the laws of logic; in order for a discussion to take place, all parties involved must agree that rocks, once defined, are always rocks and adhere to their definitions.

The TAG argument builds on these laws of logic to provide the following "proof" of God:

1) Logical absolutes exist.
2) These laws of logic are conceptual in nature, not physical. They do not exist anywhere in the physical world.
3) Because these absolutes are conceptual, they must have been conceived in a mind.
4) However, these laws are perfect and absolute. Human minds are not perfect or absolute.
5) Logical absolutes are true everywhere are not dependent on human minds.
6) Therefore, these laws of logic must exist in a perfect, absolute, transcendental mind.
7) That mind is called God.

Put in another way, logical absolutes must be the product of a mind, and thses laws are absolute, there must be an absolute mind behind them with that mind being God. In order for a logical proof to work, two conditions must be met: The premises must be true, and the structure must support the premises to their logical conclusion. Structurally, the argument is logically sound; if every premise were true, then the outcome would also be true. However, as we shall see, the premises are not true, which invalidates the argument entirely

The Fallacy Of Equivocation

The problem with the TAG is that the laws of logic are descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, the laws are simply a desription of things we know to be true. The universe does not conform to logical absolutes because someone thought them up and is holding reality to that standard. These absolutes exist purely to describe patterns that we have observed as true in reality. To understand the difference between a desriptive and prescriptive law, consider this example: Gravity is a desriptive law. Isaac Newton didn't create gravity. It existed before he identified it and would have continued existing regardless of whether he had ever given it a name. The laws of gravity are simply observations made by scientists that explain natural processes. The traffic speed limit is a presriptive law. It was created and enforced by people, and it's meaningless without such enforcement. If no one came up with a speeding limit or held people accountable for speeding, speed limits would cease to exist. In the same way, the laws of logic are desriptive. No one made them up or wrote them in a handbook somewhere for them to exist. They were simply observed as always being true (rocks are always rocks because if a rock were anything else, it would cease to be a rock). Because the laws of logic are not prescriptive, they do not require the mind of a deity or any other mind to exist. Human minds can identify them and put them into words, but the phenomena these laws refer to would continue to exist regardless of whether a deity or anyone else thought about them.

Proponents of TAG conflate the description of logical laws with the natural phenomena they refer to. Equating an object with its desription is like equating a phtograph of a car with the real thing; although the photograph accurately depicts an image of the car, you cannot apply the qualities of the photo in accurately describing the real car. Otherwise, you might erroneously extrapolate (incorrectly come to the conclusion that) cars are flat and fit in the palm of your hand. The same is true for the laws of logic . The statement "A=A" is a conceptual description of a physical property. The statement itself requires a mind to describe it. However, the physical property would remain true, with or without a mind to conceive it. What this means is that these desriptions themselves are what is purely conceptual. But the laws they desribe are not coneptual. What these laws refer to is the consistency of existence, which exists whether or not they're being described or identified by a mind. A rock is always a rock because it exists in reality. If there were no mind to observe the rock, it would still be a rock. Minds are necessary only to describe that phenomenon, not to make it true. The fallacy of equivocation occurs because the TAG argument uses logical absolutes in more than one sense. Logical absolutes, as described in step one of the TAG argument above, are physical underpinnings of the universe; in step two, they are the descriptions of those laws. Logical absolutes do exist. However, these laws are not conceptual in nature. We do not need any minds for them to exist. We only need minds to observe, understand and express these laws. Our perceptions of these laws are by no means perfect, unchanging or absolute.

If the premises of TAG were sound, the argument still leaves much to be desired as evidence of the existence of God. If you were to accept the premise that universal concepts require a universal mind to think of them, there is nothing to suggest what that mind might be like. In other words, the TAG mind behind the rules of logic would not necessarily need to have any of the qualities commonly associated with deities, including benevolence, omnipotence, a role in the creation of the universe and a source of morality. There is nothing in the TAG to suggest that the hypothetical mind behind the rules of logic was capable of or responsible for anything other than conceiving of those laws. As such, it would fail to actually prove anything about the existence of deities or provide convincing reason to worship or attempt to create personal relationships with God.

Sources in comments.


This round I shall be doing the same as Con and I shall be arguing God in the sense that of monistic idealism. Thus meaning that the only possible for said being to have consciousness and not just matter.

Monistic idealism.

P1 Mind is mental
P2 Nothing mental can interact with what is non-mental
C1 Nothing mind interacts with is non-mental
P3 Mind interacts with reality
C2 Reality is mental

P1: Mind is mental.

P1: IF mind is matter, THEN solipsism is impossible (exists in no possible worlds).
P2: Solipsism is possible (does exist in some possible world).
C: Mind is not matter.

Metaphysical Solipsism shows that all exists within our own minds. Though we may think there is a world out there it is all actually in our minds. [1] Thus a world has to exist within our own minds and there are several reasons why this is completely true. It makes perfect sense since it isn't prima facie impossible and thus must be accepted as a solid fact, not to mention that it is perfectably reasonable and a sound argement. If we can see that the mind was matter, then it would be impossible to exist appart from matter itself. Things that are Metaphysically impossible are not even imaginable. Can you imagine a Square Hexigon? No, such a thing is perposterous. We can thus see that Metaphysical solipsism is consitstant with Metaphysically possible. Here we have to apply the Indentity of Indiscernibles.

F(FxFy) → x=y.

This is reflected by showing that these things are distinguished by some differential, but in the case of, let's say clones for the sake of arguing, is just a replication of it's own molecules. This is centered on the basis that all things have an individualistic characteristic and in the case of God it is the existance of it's own mind and it's consciencousness that shows this. I shall give an example bellow.

There are 3 Sphere, Sphere A, B, and C
Each have the same qualities.
Each of these Spheres exist in world 1.
Sphere A exists in World 2, but Sphere B and C cannot due to their likeness characteristics. [2]

We can see that this is a logically coherrant case and thus is sound. We can also see that due to the theory of Truely Large Numbers that there is a great chance that this world is that of a Solipsism one as many studies have shown. (but that's for another debate)

P2: Seperate Substances cannot interact
I will now debunk substance and property dualism for this to be true.

Substance Dualism
This is best cleverly sumed up by the phrase "Mind over Matter" where they argue that there's escentially two distinct things: Mind and Matter. [3] Though the key question here is if the mind is seperate from matter than how does the mind and the brain interact? We would have to see in order for the consciousness and matter to interact there would have to be some sort of interaction. (See image bellow) The trap here is that since there is a linkage here we can see that there cannot be two seperate things since they would have to be interlinked. Thus the theory here is false.

Property Dualism
So you may concede to the above dualism, but then you might say, alrighty, if that is true then the mind must be a property of the brain. Though if this was true then it would lead to epiphenomenalism and that there would be no free will since everything that we do would have been created by some reaction in the Physical aspect.

Though this is completely false as this leads to an interesting contradiction of itself. Say I weigh 180 lbs (not my actual weight, but it's an example), the property of me would be 180 lbs. Now tell me, have you ever gone outside or to the zoo and seen 180lbs? No something that weighs that, but the 180 lbs by itself? Thus we can blatently see that it is an abstract that exists only as a property. It can only exist as a property of something else.

If we remember my Solipsism argument from earlier we can see that the mind can exist by itself and thus it cannot be a property like the 180 lbs as the mind isn't a property thus it wouldn't be consevable much like the 180 lbs.

P3: Mind interacts with reality.

This almost seems like it's the most obvious here, so I'll try to not spend a whole great deal of time here. We can take many examples, but let's take pain for the greatest example here. I get hit in the head with a foul ball at a baseball game. Outside of the fact that I would probably have been KO'd we can see that the mind affects what I feel. I would feel a massive amount of pain and if it was great enough then I would lose consciousness and the mind would go dormant to protect itself and me as a person.

Thus the reality is mental.

OA argument add on

First to respond to the possible argument, one can see that this counts for all worlds possible meaning that all that exist. Due to this and we've seen this from the above Anslem Argument that God has to exist under this circumstance as no matter what there will always be a Maximumly Great being which also refutes the reverse premise. We can see that it would be highly unlikely for him to not exist as God would have to exist seeing that there would always be some Maximumly Great Being out there.

On the matter of proving God by doing mathematics we can see that this is indeed possible as Scientist Godel has actually given the following proofs for God and they just so happen to fall under this contention.

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property [4]
Axiom 4 has been stated that it must be necessary and is possible to point out the good in all things.

Godel himself had stated that, "Postitive means that in a positive moral aestetics sense. It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation." [5] The other Axioms can be summed up to be an ultrafilter which I'll get into a little later on. The Axioms can be translated into the following theorums and math equation.

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Theorem 2: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 3: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 4: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified. [6]

Now we can see that this mathematical equation was actually done and proven. With it being solved we can see that it brings up great and highly valid evidence that God exists. People used the above theorums and axioms through the use of LEO-II and Statallax.

Debate Round No. 3


R2 Rebuttals

The ontological Argument (OA)

The OA assumes what it wants to prove. It posits the simple ability to think of something perfect directly proves the existence of this perfect being. Thinking about something cannot prove that thing's existence.

I’ve never understood the supposed difficulty in refuting the OA for god’s existence. Apart from the fact that it’s an argument from logic and reason alone, rather than from any actual verifiable evidence – which should rule it out as an argument to be considered seriously anyway in my view – it never seemed to make any sense.

If God exists only as an idea in the mind, then all this means is that we can imagine something that is greater than the idea of God in the mind – not greater than a God who actually exists. The argument relies entirely on equivocation - the misleading use of a term that has more than one meaning, while glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time. The argument relies on there being two meanings of the word “God,” and it slips between these definitions as it suits him. What are these two meanings of the word “God”? They are a god who exists in reality and a god who exists only in the mind.

If you look at specific words in general you will notice that your version of the OA contains a lot of "ifs" you have stated that because there is a possibility that a 'maximally great' exists and because there is a possibility that a 'maximally great' being exists in the actual world this means that a maximally great being exists. Once the OA is deduced it makes less sense and the argument fails.

In my opponent's "S5 argument he also relies on a lot of assumptions. May I remind him that there is no way to prove or disprove God. Just because there is a possibility that God exists it does not mean that God exists. He has also asked me to depict a black hole as Neil Tyson depicted it as inside the black hole in his novel. This is unlikely and he has not provided any evidence as to why I should view a black hole like this and why he is right.

My opponents role in this debate is not to show that God is a possibility. His role is to prove that God exists. There is a possibility that I am a robot plotting to take over the world with my army of robots. This is unlikely but it is a possibility - just like the existence of God. He has provided possibilities but has not provided any facts and has also failed to give me a reason to why I should assume parts of his argument.


The focus of this argument obviously lies in the problem of the universe 'beginning to exist' or 'coming into existence'.

The problem arises only on the presupposition of what in philosophical terms is called 'presentism' otherwise known as the dynamic or the tensed view of time. In more modern terms this has been branded the 'A-Theory of Time'. The A-Theory of time holds that the past just as the future does not exist; the only ontological commitment it has is the commitment to the existence of the present moment. On this view of time the universe would have to 'come into existence' at a certain time since the universe is past finite. This means there is a past boundary of time before which the universe doesn't exist, so to say, the universe has an absolute first moment. On the philosophical view of eternalism, nowadays described as the 'B-Theory of Time', its not only the present moment that exists but rather, past, present and future exist all together. On this view the universe doesn't come into existence, rather, the universe is seen as multi-dimensional object that tenselessly exist and doesn't ever 'come into being' but simply exists.

Dr. Craig concedes this by stating:

"From start to finish, the KCA is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived"

According to this quote by Craig himself, if the B-Theory of Time is the correct view on the nature of time the first premise of the KCA: "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is false.
The universe still has a beginning in time but it doesn't become actual at this point in time, it rather exists tenselessly as a multi-dimensional object.


The problem with the TA is that it ignores root causes. If God exists to fulfill his own purpose, which is to design all things, then he would have to have designed himself. Therefore, using the TA there is nothing prior to God, no cause that led to God's existence. With no explanation for God other than the final cause, the final purpose, it is difficult to say how God manifested in the first place. Even with the tomato plant, it certainly has a final cause, but it was clearly caused by seeds, soil, water, and sun. The TA for the existence of God gives no physical evidence of how God came to be. The TA only proposes that God exists because God's purpose is/was to design all things, including himself. In other words, God was designed to exist (designed by himself?) and therefore he exists. The TA fails because there is nothing/nobody to design God. For the TA to succeed, the philosopher would have to explain how God got his design/purpose/final cause in the first place. It's difficult to explain how God could have designed himself to be the designer of all things (including himself). Following the TA, wouldn't God need to be designed to design himself to be the designer?

Again, my opponent has continued to jump to conclusion and make assumptions. He has listed steps 6 - 10. 6-8 can be agreed by atheists and theists. 9 jumps to the conclusion that God exists because the universe has a cause.

"One of the great theories of modern cosmology is that the universe began in a Big Bang. This is not just an idea but a scientific theory backed up by numerous lines of evidence."

There is the cosmic microwave background, which is an echo of the big bang; there is the infinite expansion of the cosmos, which when imagined backwards, hints at a Big Bang-type origin; and the abundance of the primordial elements, such as helium-4, helium-3, deuterium etc. , can all be calculated using the theory.

That still leaves a puzzle. What caused the Big Bang? For years, cosmologists have relied on the idea that the universe formed spontaneously, the Big Bang was the result of quantum fluctuations in which the Universe came into existence from nothing.

s://*INtAsuxJF7cMqoCBmesz-w.jpeg" alt="" />

The proof is based on a set of solutions to a mathematical entity known as the Wheeler-DeWitt (WDW) equation. In the first half of the 20th century, cosmologists struggled to combine the two pillars of modern physics— quantum mechanics and general relativity—in a way that reasonably described the universe. As far as they could tell, these theories were entirely at odds with each other. The breakthrough came in the 1960s when the physicists J. Wheeler and B. DeWitt combined these previously incompatible ideas in a mathematical framework now known as the WDW equation. The new work of Dongshan and co explores some solutions to this equation.

At the heart of their thinking is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. This allows an empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to fluctuations what physicists call the metastable false vacuum. When this happens, there are two possibilities. If this bubble of space does not expand rapidly, it disappears. But if the bubble can grow to a large enough size, then a universe is created in a way that is irreversible.

Does the WDW equation allow this? “We prove that once a true vacuum bubble is created, it has the chance to expand exponentially,” Dongshan. Their approach is to consider a spherical bubble that is entirely described by its radius. They then derive the equation that describes the rate at which this radius can expand. They then consider 3 scenarios for the geometry of the bubbleR02;—R02; closed, open or flat.

They find solutions in which the bubble can expand and thereby reach a size in which a universe can form—a Big Bang. That’s a result that cosmologists should be able to build on. An important factor in today’s models of the universe is called the cosmological constant. This is a term that describes the energy density of the vacuum of space. It was introduced by Einstein and later abandoned by him after Hubble’s discovery that the universe was expanding.

Most cosmologists assumed that the cosmological constant was 0. More recently, cosmologists have found evidence that something is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate, implying that the cosmological constant cannot be 0. So any new theory of the universe must allow for a non-0 value of the cosmological constant. What plays the role of the cosmological constant in Dongshan new theory? They say a quantity known as the quantum potential plays the role of cosmological constant in the new solutions.

This potential comes from an idea developed by the physicist D. Bohm. This theory reproduces all of the conventional predictions of quantum mechanics but at the price of accepting an additional term called the quantum potential. It has the effect of making quantum mechanics entirely deterministic since the quantum potential can be used to work out things like the actual position of the particle.

Mainstream physicists have never taken to Bohm’s idea because its predictions are identical to the conventional version of the theory so there is no way of telling them apart. It forces physicists to accept a probabilistic explanation for the nature of reality, something they generally accept. The conclusion we come to is that the universe could have come without the intervention of God.

All the sources are in the comments due to the character limit. R3 rebuttals and conclusions will be posted in the last round.


I think that you might have to forgive me here since I’m a little stressed for time as I wasn’t quite ready for my opponent to respond as quick as he did. I will be addressing certain arguments out of hand here, so please try to stick with me.

Pascal’s Wager

There’s no reason that this has any grounds in this debate and should thus be thrown out of this debate.

God and moral’s

Moral is defined as “of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:”[1] Now here I would like to challenge this argument as not to that the Bible and Qua’ran doesn’t say these thing, but rather, but to challenge the morality here. We can all see that morality is subjective. Now, because I am arguing this it would mean that morality would very from person to person, but in the end God has a universal morality. Escentially I’ll be arguing is that my opponent’s take on the case is looking at it from the wrong perspective.

First we can see that morals tend to very from place to place. Let’s take for example Tibet’s allowing a son and a father to be able to take the same wife in marriage. People in the western culture may think that this is barbaric. What of different ways of different cultures burying the dead you have some people burying the dead, cremation, or even eating the dead. Now we may freak out and think that eating the dead is “Morally” wrong, but the thing is that we cannot tell them right or wrong since we’re from a different culture and thus our “moral” values are different then theirs. We can see that even if you stick a man on an island by himself at birth he is likely to develop his own set of values and these may be well different than our own. [2]

Now, before you jump in saying that this is all here to disprove God, I will tell you that you are incorrect. Let’s look at the different ways people honor the dead again. We had cemations, buried, and eating. Though these are all different types of ways people deal with the dead, what’s the overall theme? It’s that people honor the dead. So we can see that though there isn’t a clear cut linkage, but there are universal traits that are accepted. My opponent is attempting to try to say that people shouldn’t eat the dead and thus it isn’t moral. We can look at the Koran (how it’s spelled in Afghanistan) and we can see that the verse my opponent has provided is more about the Brotherhood and unitity of the religion. Not about punishment. It’s like how American gangs stick together and then they are harsh on people who leave. So something as what my opponent sees as barbaric is actually accepted here in America. We can compare this to how LeBron left Cleveland and people burned his jearseys, but when he returned people rejoiced. We can see that something that is in the Koran is actually universally accepted right here in the US.

Arguments 5 are addressed by my R3 argument.

Proof that God Exists.

My opponent here, himself, is committing a fallacy himself. The Falacy of ignorance. He states that since we haven’t seen God then he does not exist. This itself should make this argument enough to be thrown out of this debate, but if my opponent doesn’t think so, which likely he won’t, then I shall continue on this argument.

My opponent tries to shift the burden on me, but we can see that the belief of God is A priori and a posteriori. If it is a posteriori then we can see that there is proof all around us for many things. We have people having certain expierences about God everyday, but if you want something a little more close to the situation you have things like how Moses wrote the Torah (first 5 books of the Bible). Here God “moons” Moses in order for him to see God and he documents this. This caused him to have to where a veil over his face as he decended Mt. Siani. Now if that’s not A posteriori then I don’t know what is. [3]

I apologize as I’m unable to get all my arguments in due to a time restraint.

2. (
3. (

Debate Round No. 4


Me and lannan13 have agreed to tie this debate. Vote neutral!


Confirming what Con had said.
Debate Round No. 5
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lannan13 3 years ago
You Balacafa, obviously.
Posted by Balacafa 3 years ago
So who would you have voted for?
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago

The basic thing -- Pro, your articulations of the famous pro-God arguments are weak. I need to see both links and impacts to get any feeling of proper offense. Please use some spell check as well, since the poor S&G impeded readability, and remove all the unnecessary "we can see's." Let me provide a brief look at how the arguments should have been articulated.

(1) OA. First, you're mixing up too many OA's. Just drop the Godel OA and Anselm's OA, since both are subject to the Leibnizian objection and the subjectivity of "greatness," and so forth. Craig's articulation of the MOA is weak. Instead, define God as a "necessary being," i.e. a being that exists in all possible worlds. From that, you can infer a modus tollens manner of affirming the resolution, e.g. if God does not exist in all possible worlds, God necessarily does not exist (i.e. is impossible), but God exists in some possible world, therefore exists in all possible worlds.

(2) KCA. One of the stronger arguments articulated, but justify the premises better. P1 is inductively verified a posteriori, and the scientific method is predicated on it. Argue law of causality, or something. For P2, use inflation, and argue that B-theory objection is entirely semantic, and so forth.

(3) Just discard the TA. It's a weak argument. Discard the add-on too.

(4) Idealism. I explain the link between idealism and God here [].
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago

Part 3: Lannan's case, contd.

(1) Monistic idealism. Ugh, I can't see where this argument is going. It completely fails when it comes to the links. I absolutely don't see how this relates to the resolution in any manner. The argument isn't explained. All I'm getting is that "reality is mental," but I absolutely don't see how "reality is mental" entails "God exists." It's just not justified. I can drop this pretty directly.

(2) Godel OA. Generally along the same lines of the Anselm OA, all axioms and theorems are (a) ipse dixit, and (b) subjective. One's definition of "positivity" can't extend to both existence and possibly false properties, since then it'll just be a fallacy of equivocation.

The same thing about offense/defense with all of Con's arguments.
Posted by NiceAwesumDude 3 years ago
This is a pointless debate if your just gonna remove any votes that are posted...
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago

(4) Anselm OA. "Great" is equally subjective, so I'm not seeing a warrant for the jump from "God is great" to "God exists." I don't see how "existence" exemplifies "greatness," since, subjectively, non-existence could do that too. The argument has no strong links and no warrant.

(5) Godel OA. Generally along the same lines of the Anselm OA, all axioms and theorems are (a) ipse dixit, and (b) subjective. One's definition of "positivity" can't extend to both existence and possibly false properties, since then it'll just be a fallacy of equivocation.

Part 2: Con's case

I'm not seeing any offense from Con. All Con tries to do with their "case" is OFC, merely defense preempting arguments. I don't see any justification for the statement "God doesn't exist," only mitigating "God exists," straw-manning Pro's case. So the entire arguments are merely a red herring, and could've easily been dismissed by Lannan that way. I don't see any link to the resolution on the Con side, and judges aren't obliged to vote on defenses anyway.

I'll have my voters' analysis up soon.
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
== Critique ==

I'll just try to respond to each of the cases under this, and show what flaws went into it. Then I'll try to analyze the debate as a voter and generally come to a conclusion.

Part 1: Pro's case

(1) Modal OA. First, argument isn't sufficiently warranted or explained. Pro's articulation fails to define "God," which, in usual articulations of the MOA, would be defined as a "necessary being." So Pro fails to explain the jump from "God exists in one possible world" to "God exists in all possible worlds." I'm just not seeing much justification for the premises, and there's no explanation. Second - turn this argument. The reverse premise, "it is possible for God to not exist," would entail the reverse conclusion via the exact same logic. The logical possibility of God's non-existence would be established by a single-particle world obeying a time-dependent Hamiltonian.

(2) Kalam CA. There's multiple problems with the argument. All Pro's examples under P1 are hasty generalizations. You can't generalize from "who killed Roger Rabbit" to "what caused the universe." Further, we have no reason that "causes" are coherent without time directionality. Sans time directionality, a time-bound "cause" can't exist, since cognition collapses with the singularity, resulting in "before the singularity" being incoherent. The second premise fails to justify a presentism ontology of time which it assumes, and fails to demonstrate an A-theory interpretation of BGV theorem, which would also assume a neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity. It's also unclear how the cause is God.

(3) TA. This is the weakest argument Lannan presents, primarily because I'm unable to see how prescriptive and descriptive telos are the same. Pro tries to prove the latter, but the former has to be established for anything objective. Evolution via natural selection can also generate telos, which means generation of telos can be by multiple means.
Posted by Balacafa 3 years ago
This debate will be a tie. Votes in favor of Pro or Con will be removed.
Posted by lannan13 3 years ago
Do whatever you need to.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by greatkitteh 3 years ago
Who won the debate:--
Reasons for voting decision: KIM JONG un IS MY BEST FRIEND.
Vote Placed by tejretics 3 years ago
Who won the debate:--
Reasons for voting decision: Tied vote, as requested. Critique in comments.
Vote Placed by Unbelievable.Time 3 years ago
Who won the debate:--
Reasons for voting decision: Draw