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

God exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Anonymous has forfeited round #3.
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: 3/28/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 520 times Debate No: 111924
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)



For the first round please just accept the debate. Arguments will begin next round.


I accept and look forward to a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Atheists say that no one can prove God exists, and they're right. But I say no one can disprove God's existence. But in order to have this debate we need to look at the available evidence, and that's what we're going to do.
Most atheists believe in something called the big bang theory. This is the belief that everything in this universe exploded into existence. They believe that it is the result of everything. If it is the cause of everything, there had to once be nothing. And well, in our lives we never really see something pop out from nothing. But atheists want to make a small exception to this rule, that is, the universe and everything in it. But the thing is without a God in the equation, you are asked to believe a lot. You have to believe that even if there was an explosion, everything that you are studying in science right now came from probability, which is a lot to come from an explosion. How can you look at the billions of species, millions of galaxies and say that is just appeared from probability. Does the universe and everything in it just randomly appear? Which takes more faith to believe: Someone created something out of nothing? Or no one created something out of nothing?


To start off I want to say that no one can ever prove the non existence of something. It as you say by definition impossible.

I view theism as a theory, which is used to explain our universe and why it is the way it is. Here I already see the first major problem. A good scientific theory should say exactly which data would fit it and which data would falsify it. Theism doesn"t provide this possibility of testing it against the data as it is ill-defined and doesn"t predict any specific observations in our world. While you might think that this is wrong, as in the common sense terms it seems obvious that you would expect certain things in a universe governed by a god, I have to point you to the unbelievable flexibility of the theistic believe. It can best be observed, if you look at the vast space of which nearly all is absolutely inhospitable to life or the unimaginable suffering of human life. Normally if the hypothesis of an all loving god who especially cares about us is viewed in an honest and scientific way, you would expect the opposite of what is observed. Now why is it still the case that people believe in this god even though the evidence clearly shows that the theory of an all loving god doesn"t fit the data? The reason is that theism is so loosely defined that even this can be squared with the belief. For the vastness of space it is an artistic god wanting to create and for the suffering it is his mysterious way (we can elaborate on the argument of free will on this, but I don"t think this works either). This is not a useful way of formulating a hypothesis which is why it is from the start a very bad theory. I will go through some more of these problems and hope for something else then gods" mysterious ways as an explanation, as those would only prove my point:
-God shouldn"t be hard to find. A god that is all-loving and has a direct wish for people to find him, as this seems to be the only to come to salvation, he should at least be obvious. He should be obviously observable, because only then you are really making a choice or even can make a choice. In our actual world, where god is everything but obvious, it isn"t a choice if you happen to be brought up in another faith failing to be saved by god.
-Under theism you would expect believe to be universal and in only one god. There is no reason for a god to give a special message to some little tribe in a specific place.
-The religious scripture (only one) should be useful, interesting and filled with nontrivial things (e.g.: the germ theory of disease) and not just be a collection of ancient text of which some are good while others aren"t. It should especially tell something that is obviously divine in a sense that no one could have known it (e.g. that the world is made of atoms).
-Life should be designed and shouldn"t change over time. It shouldn"t be derived from an evolutionary mechanism, which is in no way a mechanism used by a god to build us as it is just not a reliable mechanism with which we as god"s goal could be reliably created.
-Life shouldn"t be purely physical, but have a component that makes it special (this also shows why fine tuning is only needed under naturalism, as god should be able to create live where he wants to do so and shouldn"t have to care how heavy an electron is). We see no such thing anywhere and know from the fundamental laws of physics that there can"t be anything affecting our physical bodies in order for them to be alive.
While there are many more, I will stop here as I think that the point is clear. The theistic worldview predicts the world to be perfect, while the naturalistic one expects it to be kind of a mess and I hope I don"t have to tell you, but our universe is kind of a mess. This all together constitutes strong empirical evidence, which obviously doesn"t disprove god (this is impossible) and obviously can be explain away with a mysterious god, but this just shows how bad the theory is.

Now I will quickly go over your argument. Firstly I don"t believe in the big bang, but I have evidence for it and therefore know that 13.8 billion years ago there was the big bang. It is not the belief that everything "exploded into existence". The only thing it says, is that there was a first moment in time from which the "explosion" was our universe. It doesn"t say that it is a beginning of existence what so ever as it is just a first moment in the time of our universe. It doesn"t show that there had to be nothing before it or even that it had to be caused to happen. In general it can be said that I don"t know what happened before the big bang, if it is even a sensible question as it is literally the beginning of time and neither can anyone else including and especially you together with the theists know it. It could be either part of an eternal multiverse or really have a beginning at that point. We just don"t know and therefore you can"t actually use a "beginning" as your argument as there is no way to say that it is even more likely (and also the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem doesn"t show it). If the universe were in fact eternal there wouldn"t be any issue. Therefore I will show that even if it weren"t eternal and had in fact a beginning this wouldn"t point to a creator either. The beginning of the universe is something very different from our everyday life"s which is why we just can"t apply our common sense to it. It would be the actually beginning of existence, which no one has ever observed. I you think conventionally about the beginning of existence, you actually thing about the rearrangement of already existing stuff into something new. The beginning of existence is not like that. Therefore we can"t say whether or not this would need a creator as you have no experience of any such thing. It is just as much a possibility that the beginning out of nothing would happen without a cause. Therefore there is in fact no reason to think that creation ex nihilo requires a cause. We just have no way of knowing anything about it and also we have a further problem in the supposed causation. You are assuming god to cause nothing to become something which is impossible as nothing isn"t something you can cause to do anything. The question, why other things do not just pop into existence isn"t comparable as we don"t have any nothing here to test it on in order to see whether or not it happens. Therefore I see no reason to believe that even if the universe had a real beginning, this beginning was caused by a creator. I also see no reason in our universe to assume that it needed a creator to account for it especially in light of science.

I look forward to your arguments.
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
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
Of course. The only thing you actually know is that god is a dream..You know absolutly nothing else then that... May the spagetti-monster be with you..
Posted by gkim 3 years ago
man you're such a coward..still now you're saying that god is just a dream and you have no proof or evidence.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
"Different gods consist of different dreams. But what is true for every one of them, is that they stop to exist if you stop to dream them."
You are a perfect example.....
Posted by gkim 3 years ago
contradictory statements cannot be true and cannot both be false.
The contradiction of "some is eternal" is "none is eternal."
If "none is eternal" then:
all is temporal.
all had a beginning
all came into being
If all came into being then being came into existence from non-being
being from non-being is not possible
therefore the original "none is eternal" is not possible
therefore its contradiction "some is eternal" must be true.
We, humans, are all born with the free will solution. For instance, if I want to eat pizza or hamburger I get to choose what I want to eat because I have the free will to do that. And evil makes the free will possible not actual.God is said to be free without the possibility of evil. And a man, in his final state of blessedness, is said to be free without the possibility of evil. But if evil did not exist was the prophecy to save us confirmable. Because evil existed we are able to sin. And because we are sinners we need a savior who can rescue us and forgive us. If there was no evil there wouldn't have been as sinning but because it is evil therefore there is sin and as a conclusion, we need a savior to forgive us.
According to the Surrendra Gangadean
1. because of all the evil in the world I cannot see how it can be said that God is all good and powerful.
2. Because of all the unbelief in the world, I cannot see how it can be said that God is all good and all powerful
3. because of all the unbelief in me I cannot see how it can be said that God is all good and all powerful
4. because I have neglected and avoided the use of reason I cannot see what is clear about God.
Posted by gkim 3 years ago
and once again @canis is just saying that God is just a dream with no evidence. Don't you feel ashamed going to every debate and just commenting how God is just a dream with no evidences?
Posted by canis 3 years ago
Different gods consist of different dreams. But what is true for every one of them, is that they stop to exist if you stop to dream them.
This debate has 4 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.