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

God exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
MagicAintReal has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/1/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,225 times Debate No: 103359
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)




So I have been spreading this rumor around that I left Islam and became an atheist lately mostly to play the devil's advocate. These did not happen and I will never become atheist but I was merely trying to collect as many as rebuttals as possible.I will be arguing in this debate that the case for God is extensive and is most often underrated. I will be using science, philosophy and logic to form the foundations for my arguments for God. I am a Theist and my opponent should most likely be an atheist who denies the existence of God.

Definitions :

Universe - all of space, matter, time and energy

God - the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority

Exists - to have an objective being or existence.

Rules :

-no trolling
-no forfeits
-no semantics (tweaking definitions of the dictionary)

Rounds :

Round one - acceptance
R2) arguments
R3) Rebuttals + arguments
R4) Rebuttals
R5) Rebuttals

BOP : Burden of proof will be shared. The opponent (who is most likely an atheist) will have to demonstrate that God does not exist. Since claiming that the natural reality is all that exists and that there is no supernatural reality is a claim. Whoever claims that God does not exist is making a negative claim and therefore should prove it. Proving a negative claim is possible because you can prove that there are no muslims in the U.S. senate, there are no dinosaurs on the face of the Earth, the sun does not orbit the Earth. all of those were negative claims that should and could be proven. The most logical position taken if you reject the claim that there is a God would be an agnostic, who claims that he simply does not know since you would still have no evidence for/against either sides. No arguments against religion shall be made since you could disprove all religions and you still would not undermine or even address the reliability of God.


Thanks for the debate, Pro.
I accept.
I also agree to the definitions provided.
I would also like to provide some auxiliary definitions to keep the debate on track.


creator - a person or thing that *creates*.

creation - the *process* of bringing something into existence.

process - a *series* of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.

series - a number of events of a related kind coming one *after* another.

after - in the *time* following an event or another period of time.

Thanks again for the debate Pro.
I agree to negate this resolution.
Debate Round No. 1


This time, Con seems a little bit more comptent than the other opponents I have had so I will try a little harder.

Argument from Fine Tuning:

P1) There is incomprehensibly improbably fine tuning of the universe for life (sometimes, even for the universe to exist)
P2) The only logical explanations are chance, necessity or design
P3) It is not due to necessity or chance
Conclusion : The fine tuning of the universe is due to design.

P1) One example is If the mass and energy of the early universe were not evenly distributed to an incomprehensible precision of 1 part in 10^10^123, the universe would be hostile to life of any kind. This is only one constant. Most of the fine tuning are situations like the probability that the initial universe had low entropy. This infinitesmall probability is 1 in 10^10^123. [0] To put that in context, it is like blindfolding a man then puttin him in a room with a trillion trillion trillion ... (132 trillions) but painting one coin red beforehand. The likelihood of the man picking this one coin among the exponential trillions is the same as the universe having intial low entropy. This is ONE example. Multiply that by the plethora of other (even more unlikely) situations or events multiplied by the unlikely constants and you will realize the glory of the fine tuning of this universe.

Most of the sources and the examples of fine tuning can be found here [1].

P2) True unless my opponent wants to provide any other explanation.

P3) Necessity : Some constants do not even have to exist and you would still have a universe (hostile to any form of life, however) [2] therefore they are not necessary constants

Chance : The possibility that the universe would have had this perfect match of constants has been estimated by two of the best mathematicians of our time (Penrose and Lennox) to be 1 in 1^10^123 based on only one constant [3] [4] [5] . according to mathematicians, anything with the possibility of 1 in 10^50 is basically impossible [6] [7]

It takes less faith for design.

"This is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all . . . it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming." - Paul Davies



Implications : The deliberate designer would have to exist before the universe existed (to design some of the constants required for the universe to even exist) and is therefore independent of nature (supernatural), universe and its dimensions (spaceless, timeless, immaterial, non-physical, etc.). The traits of this supernatural designer proves it is most likely God.

This next argument will blow your mind away if understood correctly, however, it has some advanced content.

The Introspective Argument

P1) The mind exists
P2) Mind is not reducible to matter
P3) Substance dualism is false
C1) All is mind
P4) Solipsism is false and only theism is left to account for this
C2) Only theism can account for this
C3) Since Theism is true, God exists

Premise 1)

Theist or atheist, your mind and conciousness is the only thing you can be certain exists and is not an illusion. Whoever wants to deny that his conciousness exists or that there is no such thing as mental experience. Your conciousness and your mind is the only thing you can be sure that is not an illusion. The fact that there is something going on around you and that you are experienceing something is undeniable. Even closing your eyes or isolating yourself as much as possible from your surroundings and the closing your eyes, the only thing you will notice is your mind, conciousness and mental experience. This is proven by Rene Descrates' "I think Therefore I am". Sam Harris further corroborates my point. [8]


This is self-evident as can be illustrated through the distinction between the properties of the mind and the properties of the matter. For example, sugar as matter does not carry with it the "taste" of sugar. The substance would be sugar and the mental property would be the taste of sugar or Qualia which is obviously distinct from sugar itself since taste is all a mental experience and property. When you die, even if you have sugar in your mouth (matter), you will not have ualia to experience the taste. This is also evident with feeling pain (mental) and electrical signal (physical/matter) to the brain. The whole point of this passage is that our mental experience is fundementally different from matter. Sam Harris agrees with so that no amount of introspection of the mental experience can reduce to the matter. [9] Further corroboration and confirmation can be found in the Levine's explanatory gap and in the argument from modal idealism. Moreover even further confirmation can be found in the case of Mary, the color scientist. ()


Though it appears obvious that the mind is immaterial, there is a problem. We often think of the world as divided between immaterial mind and material matter, the ghost and the machine. But there is a problem with this view often referred to as the interaction problem.
My immaterial mind can move my material body, but my material body moves via a material force. Thus if my mind can interact with my body, it must produce material forces. However if it produces material forces, it can not really be immaterial at all.
Thus substance dualism is found to be self-contradictory at close inspection and must be rejected. But if immaterial mind already exists, then no other substance can. Thus matter can not exist, and idealism is true necessarily.

atheist youtuber Gary Edwards illustrates this wonderfully here :

- The interaction problem for substance dualism

Conclusion 1 predicts the philosophical foundations of quantum mechanics of the universe being a mental construct and that there is no objective reality and rather all of reality is subjective mental construct and that WE create objective reality. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]


"..... a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism" - Richard Conn Henry and Stephen R. Palmquist

However, solipsism can be debunked or rather prove God with a simple reductio ad absurdum argument

P1) If solipisism is conceivable, then a possible world exists with only mind (Per definition)
P2) Solipsism is conceivable
P3) Possible worlds can not be composed of only processes and properties, but must include entities
P4) There is no difference between the mind existing in a solipsist world and the actual world (Leibiniz's Law of indescernability of Identicals)
C1) Thus, the mind can not be a property but must be an entity
C2) Solipsism entails an eternal mind in the actual world which is the theistic view of God
C3) Solipsism, even if true, proves God.

Implications : If all is mind, then reality is dependent on a much larger eternal concious mind ... God and can not be entirely dependent on our mental construct (solispsism disproven)

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force .. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter" - Max Planck

Some find this argument irrational but ...

" .. most of the scientific community will reject these ideas .. their reasons are based on prejudice rather than sound argument" - Euan Squires.

Modal Ontological Argument:

P1) It is possible that a Maximally Great being (MGB) exists
P2) If MGB is possible, he exists in some possible world
P3) If MGB exists in some possible world, he exists in all possible worlds
P4) If MGB exists in all possible worlds, he exists in the actual world
Conclusion : MGB or God exists

Premise one) It is definitely possible for God or a MGB to exist in some possible world since it is not a logical contradiction.

Premise 2) If MGB is possible to exist, it logically follows that he exists in some possible world since existing in some possible world would lend truth to the possibility of his existence.

Premise 3) a maximally great being is by definition, one which has all the properties favorable to have than not. His existence would necessitate having all the great properties to the fullest extent. One great property that he would have to the fullest extent would be the property of necessity. a MGB would be categorized as a necessary being rather than a contingent being for it is greater and to a fuller extent to exist in all possible worlds (necessary) rather than to exist in some possible world (contingent). Therefore, a MGB would have to be a necessary entity. a necessary entity by definition is one that exists in all possible worlds including the world that we currently live in i.e. the actual world.

Premise 4) If God exists in the set of all possible worlds, it logically entails that he exists in this actual world since this world is possible to exist and does exist. Some might claim that reality and the actual world is an illusion or some computer stimulation, however, this has been disproven by Rene Descartes' "I think therefore I am".

Conclusion : If God exists in this world, then God exists in the actual world.

Question begging?

Some critics and skeptics might say that the argument uses God's definition to prove the existence of God. However. This is maliciously false since the argument uses the philosophy of ontology. [16] Moreover, the skeptics of such argument fail to recognize the difference between "de dre" and "de dicto". [17]


Some claim that the argument could be used to argue for the existence of a single horned horse or the unicorn. However, proponents of this objection fail to realize the distinction that unicorns are contingent entities while a MGB entails necessity of his existence.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
Dude you're awesome thanks for understanding. I'll let ya know when things cool down a little here
Posted by Moelogy 2 years ago
Congratulations. Do not even worry about it, dude. Whenever you are ready, just send a PM my way to redebate. Probably not now though as I understand, you would like to spend some time with your kid.
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
Sorry to my opponent my third kid was born yesterday and I was unable to post. If you want to, resend the debate and we can copy paste and start anew. If not I understand, but I was looking forward to the debate.
Posted by Moelogy 2 years ago
Round 2)

[0] - +
[1] -
[2] -
[3] - The Emperor"s New Mind (by Roger Penrose), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1989, p. 344
[4] -
[5] -

Sorry, the perfect match of the physical constants are 1 in 10^2,685,000 NOT 1 in 10^10^123

1 in 10^10^123 is the situation of low entropy which is different from the perfect match of constants.

[6] - Emile Borel's law
[7] - The Emperor"s New Mind (by Roger Penrose), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1989, p. 344
[8] -
[9] -
[10] -
[11] - +
[12] -
[13] -
[14] -
[15] -
[16] -
[17] - +
Posted by backwardseden 2 years ago
@Moelogy Perhaps if your god were kind, caring and loving and brought in some actual hope and intelligence, and didn't hate children above all things, then things would be different. Now as far as me believing in this god? It doesn't matter. Its the mere belief in this god that creates all this chaos, pain and suffering. More people have died, more genocides have been created, more cultures have been uprooted, more wars have been fought, more blood has been spilled, more souls have been corrupted, more bodies have been stacked high on the battlefields alone, more atrocities have been committed, more false hope has been generated, more forests have been burned, more oceans have been polluted, more skies have been filled with smog etc etc etc and they all have been committed all in the supposed "good" name of this glorious god than for any other reason.
Now as far as me enjoying my life? Wow. I could tell you some true stories that would turn your soul black. And then I would tell you about me. You think there's a god? Not if he's kind caring or loving.
And I most certainly do not post on every one of your debates. But when you post the same drivel that is muck and is clearly the reverse, such as BOP which is ALWAYS upon you with no exceptions for you to even prove god exists and for you to prove all other religions false, then I will sometimes post. Its not all the time. Its not all the time because I respect your intelligence and education in which case nearly every christian here does not have. In fact, its not even close. They don't even have any genuine friends or loved ones in which is so blatantly and obviously clear. So its very high praise my friend in your direction.
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
Hey you guys should have a debate.
Posted by Moelogy 2 years ago
Posted by Moelogy 2 years ago
@backwardsden You are 56 year old dude. Not trying to judge but go get a life instead of dedicating your life to attacking something that you do not believe exists. Seriously dude, you are like writing essays on each and every one of my debates within ten seconds of posting. You post a debate attacking the christian God like every second day. If you do not believe he exists and you are sure about it, go enjoy your life.
Posted by backwardseden 2 years ago
Until god waves his rosey red flag, he's a forgery. I do know however that a pen will drop, the sun will set, it will rain, 2 + 2 = 4. But in all languages god can be disproved.
How can you prove something that is unproved and something that is unknown and something that has never been seen? What do you look for to prove this unknown commodity of non existence? Um no. Sorry. The burden of proof is always upon those who claim "let there be light" or "let the truth be known" because it is they and you that makes those claims. Ah yes, Faith in which no god would ever rely on instead of evidence. Ab-so-lu-te gullibility.
And then there's "the lord thy god the lord is one" Again gullibility. So again the BOP is upon you to absolutely prove all other religions false. Or should we take your god's ultimatum and follow Deuteronomy 13 9-10 "But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage." And then you come on down here and follow your god's orders because I do not believe in your tyrannical hateful god who truly hates children, and you'd know that IF you were to read your hypocritical contradictory bible, in which no god would ever use text form, not ever, and I am trying to sway you... so you stone me to death. But you are not going to do it. Why not? So you directly disobey your god's laws rules and regulations. Hmmm in some lands at that time, they may have killed you for that. Great going god for coming up with a law, one of hundreds if not thousands that cannot possibly be followed.
Posted by AKAJim 2 years ago
First, this is a trick requirement: "The opponent (who is most likely an atheist) will have to demonstrate that God does not exist." It is impossible to prove general non-existence (aliens for example) and specifically the non-existence of the immaterial (gods, ghosts, demons, etc). One might as well ask the OP to prove the non-existence of a flower pot orbiting Jupiter in the first case, or of the Christian Holy Spirit in the second. The closest one can come is to demonstrate absence of proof and evidence of absence.

Second, while the context implies the Islamic deity, the OP should also specify which god in relation to which religion is under debate. For example, while one could lump all Abrahamic gods together, the god of Islam is fundamentally different than the godhead of the Christians or the Mormon god as a glorified man.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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