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

God is real

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/24/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,111 times Debate No: 59477
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




First round is acceptance


I accept.

BoP is on pro to show "God is real",
real- actually existing or happening : not imaginary

Pro is catholic, so I presume we are argung the tri-omni, eternal god.
see more attributes here:'s_known_attributes

Good luck pro :)
Debate Round No. 1


In my opinion, there has to be a god somewhere to create all the things we have on Earth.


Wow. Great opening by pro..-.-

Well there two questions we must ask.
1- Can god exists?
2- Must god exists?

1. Can god exist?
Arguments From Divine Incoherence:
These arguments shall demonstrate that the Christian god probably doesn't exist, because the existence of such a god would result in utter incoherence.

Problem Of Omnipotence:
God is defined as omnipotent. Omnipotent: " (of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything."

P1)If God exists, then God is omnipotent
P2) It should be the case that there is nothing that god can't do
P3) There is something that god can't do
C1) God does not exists

P1 is true by definition.
P2 is a derivation of P1
P3) Is a contentious point, that if true shall negate P2
C1 necessarily follows from the premises.

Defense of P3 via syllogism:

P1) An omnippotent being can create an object it can't lift.
P2) If an omnipotent being can create an object it can't lift, it can't lift the object, thus it isn't omnipotent
P3) If it can't create an object it can't lift, then it is not omnipotent.
C4) Omnipotence is impossible.

The common objection is that this is a logical impossibility and god is bound by the logical absolutes. However to say god is bound, is to concede omnipotence. However it get's even worse than that. God can't even do all that is logically possible.

P1) An omnipotent god can be evil
P2) An Omnibenevolent god can't be evil
C1) A god that is defined as omnipotent and omnibenevolent can't exist.

It is not a logical impossibility to be evil. Humans are evil all the time, so it's logical possible, however god can't be. So the Theist usually says god can do that which is of god's nature. So this basically means god can do what god can do, which can be said for anyone.

The Problem Of Evil(Epicurean Paradox):
P1)God exists.
P2)God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
P3)An omnibenevolent god would wish to preventall evils.
P4)An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
P5)An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
P6)A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
P7)If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
P8)Evil exists (logical contradiction).
C1)Evil and god as described by theism can not logically co-exist.

The problem of evil is a very old argument and theologians have had thousands of years to address it. So what do they say? The response is usually free will. But if there's a god, there is no free will for anybody.

Problem Of Free Will(Non-gods):
P1)An omniscient god knows the future.
P2) An omniscient god can't be wrong.
P3) An omniscient god can predict your actions and can't be wrong.
P4)An omniscient god knows your actions.
C1) You don't have free will.

So if there is a god, there is no rational way to combat the problem of evil.

Problem Of Omniscience And Free-Will:
P1) If god exists, he has free will and is omniscient.
P2) God knows the future
P3) God knows what actions he will perform
P4) God can't change his future(if he did, he would have known he would, thus it was part of the original series of events.)
P5) God's actions are predetermined
P6) God has no free will.
C1) God does not exists.
(True by virtue of omniscience)

So as defined god's existence Is In coherent.

Implausability Of An External Observer:

P1) God is omniscient
P2) God would observe all quantum superpositions
P3) Observation collapses quantum superpositions
P4) God would collapse all quantum positions superpositions
P5) All quantum superpositions are not collapsed
C1) God does not exist

" Quantum superposition is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics that holds that a physical system—such as an electron—exists partly in all its particular theoretically possible states (or, configuration of its properties) simultaneously; but when measured or observed, it gives a result corresponding to only one of the possible configurations (as described in interpretation of quantum mechanics)."

2. Did a god need to create the universe?

KCA: "Everything which has a beginning has a cause. The universe has a beginning. Therefore the universe has a cause." NO.

This is a terribly presumptuous argument.
A) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
B) The universe began to exist
C) The universe has a cause
D) That cause is god
It presumes
1. Everything non-eternal has a cause
2. The universe has a cause
3. The universe has a supernatural cause
Assumption1 is false. In quantum physics particles come in and out of existence with no cause. Further more something comes from nothing, this is demonstrated by experiments regarding the Casmir effect.
Assumption 2 might be true. I will elaborate on axiom two in my discussion of plausible cosmological models.
Assumption 3 is so absurd that it ISN'T EVEN FALSE. One could never know if the universe has the transcendent cause; it isn't even testable.
This violates Occam's razor.
If it is true everything has a cause and the universe has a cause, then why can' the universe be the cause of its self.
Saying the universe has a transcendent cause raises unneeded questions that CAN'T EVER BE ANSWERED.
Assumption 3 does not follow from 1 and 2.
(I didn't discuss premise B, because it's probably true, but it is not necessarily true. There are eternal models.

Cosmological Models In Which God Is Unneeded:

-The Oscillating Universe
This is a self-contained model in which the universe evolves from a big bang, then expands and expands and then collapses upon it's self and then re-expands. This model is perfectly self-contained and no god is needed.

-Hartle Hawking
I really like this one because the universe has a begining but no cause.

Any universe that is described by quantum mechanics with non-zero energy and a time independent Hamiltonian is eternal in both arrows of time.
Ekpyrotic Universe: "...our current universe arose from a collision of two three-dimensional worlds (branes) in a space with an extra (fourth) spatial dimension."

The point isn't that any of these are the right model, rather that there are self contained models.

1. Let's visit the multiverse. The multiverse is a natural consequence of inflation. Via BICEP2 Primordial gravitation waves have been detected, which is almost indisputable proof of inflation.
Inflation accounts for the:
1.Uniformity. The cosmic background radiation is quite uniform. Inflation adequately accounts for the uniformity. A uniform region expanded rapidly, evolving into our visible universe.
2. Mass density. Inflation predicts the omega should 1. The Planck satellite measures the omega as 1, which means our universe should be flat, which it is.
3.Small non-uniformity. The small non-uniformity in the universe is easily accounted for by quantum fluctuations, which have been observed in the CBR.
As explained the multiverse is a consequence of inflation. All the other predictions have come true. I would say that would constitute a good reason to think the multiverse is true.
Via inflation, some parts of the early universe expanded more than other, created bublbles of space time, which later developed into other universes, and our universe is just a bubble universe and requires no creator just a prior universe. The multiverse can be eternal.

Not only does this god not need to exist, this god does not and can not exist.

Debate Round No. 2


Can God exist? Yes. Because of why we are even here. The Big bang theory is a good theory but somethings just don'yt add up. The theory is that the universe blew up (It's a short version of saying it). It is not bad, but would't have someone of something happened to cause it? Things cannot happen by themselves. Everything in the world that happens is usually the result of someone doing it. So after the Big Bamg happened, we have an infinete universe. Someone has to have caused that too. The universe cannot be infinete on it's own. Now many say that God isn't real because of suffering. In my opinion, this does not prove that God is not real. Now many athiest's claim that we were created by evolution. I'm not saying evolution isn't true, but it is very unlikely. Why? Because we are in the perfect spot for life to be on Earth, we as humans all llok diffrent. Was this all just a lucky coincidence? I don't think so.

Conclusion: God has to be real, everything cannot be created by a lucky coincidence.


My arguments have not been addressed.

Well most of what you said was quite incorrect.

Now pro has 2 arguments:
1. Fine Tuning
2. Causality.
I addressed both of these already but let's do this again.

So is the earth really fine-tuned? I'd say no, but it's certainly not perfect.

Composition Of The Universe:

Now <0.03 of the universe seems to allow for conscious life, given that only a small portion of earth is hospitable.
percent of known conscious life in the universe:
There are 10 truly conscious animals.
There are 8.7 million species.(probably more)
0.00000115% of known life has the consciousness were operating under.
0.03% of the universe has heavy elements(which life needs)
less than 0.00000115% of the universe should have life that is conscious.
So life presumably needs water, so I how good is god at producing water? VERY VERY BAD.

"Two percent of the water on earth is glacier ice at the North and South Poles. This ice is fresh water and could be melted; however, it is too far away from where people live to be usable. Less than 1% of all the water on earth is fresh water that we can actually use."
1%! The best this god could do is 1%.
God is awful at producing life.

Multiverse And Life Permiting Parameters:
All the "fine tuning" con described can be explained through the multiverse.

If there are an infinite amount of universes then some of them are bound to have life permitting parameters.

On Design:
-More on the watch maker and design:
Now the watch maker argument assumes design is an apparent attribute one would assume.

If there's a watch, someone who knows what a watch is would infer design, but one with no concept of a watch, would most likely conclude that the watch is naturally there.
Also how do you come to the conclusion the universe is designed. We have not experienced other universes to compare it to.
With the argument from design you encounter an infinite regression.
If anything with intelligence comes from prior intelligence, then god must have been designed. Is god not intelligent?
It is absurd to argue everything intelligent comes from prior intelligence but the most intelligent being conceivable doesn't.

On Causality:
Now once again everything does not have a cause. That's why I discussed virtual partiles and the casmir effect.
Now if something caused the big bang, there's no reason it had to be a god. It could be a collision of branes or a quantum fluctuation or a prior universe. Also explain to me why the universe can't be eternal?
Also if the universe can't be eternal, then god can't either. God would have to have experienced infinity events, which is impossible because you can only approach infinity.

Also how can you reconcile suffering and a tri-omni god.

Conclusion: God is a bad designer
There's no good way to determine if the universe was designed
The universe doesn't need a cause.
If it had a cause, there's no reason for it to be god.
Debate Round No. 3


Why are we are? Why do have food on our table and water in our oceans? Where did this come from? I think it has to be created by something else. Things cannot be created on its own.

P.S. If I sound frustrated in this argument, I am because I am in a debate with another user and he is pissing me off.


Are you debating "Lifemeansgodisgood"?
He's a moron.

Why are we here?
Not a valid or relevant question. Why implies purpose, and there seems to be no purpose in the universe.
You create whatever purpose you wan't. We are here because of evolution, that's the how. Asking why doesn't make sense.

Why Is There Food On The Table?
Not relevant. There is food on our tables because farmers extract and cultivate the food. Markets have been established and the food is afforsable, to avoid a riot. This is possible because we have evolved and such a way, the earth produces food and we have a basic innate understanding of game theory.

Where did this come from?
I don't know what that means.
Gas collapsed and compressed into clumps the size of a million suns (that's starting small for something the size of the universe). These clumps then merged to build galaxies.
one hundred billion years ago the Earth, the Sun, and all the planets of the Solar System were nothing but a cloud of cold dust particles swirling through empty space. Gradually, these particles were attracted to each other and came together to form a huge spinning disk. As it spun, the disk separated into rings and the furious motion made the particles white-hot. The center of the disk became the sun, and the particles in the outer rings turned into large fiery balls of gas and molten-liquid that cooled and condensed to take on solid form. Four or five billion years ago, they turned into the planets that we know today as Earth, Mars, Venus, and the outer planets.
The earth was incredibly hot in its early years and eventually in cooled into a primordial soup.which involved in the first organisms.Yes life can sprout from non life.In the 1950s, several experiments by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey verified that the natural formation of amino acids, components of DNA, and other organic compounds out of inorganic materials was possible under the atmospheric conditions of Primordial Earth.

It did not have to be created by a god.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by FMAlchemist 7 years ago
Oh man this argument is going to be destroyed so hard.
Posted by Siladheil 7 years ago
Looking forward to this debate. Hopefully each side brings up great points, and none of that crap LifeMeansGodIsGood usually brings to the table.
Posted by Eggsample 7 years ago
Hopefully both sides come up with good arguments. Sounds like this will be an interesting debate :)
Posted by jonathon.rockman345 7 years ago
God is an Immortal Being of Creation.
God is mostly associated with the male immortal.
Goddess is mostly associated with the female immortal. I AM is not 'God' since he/she/it/hemphrodite created us human beings in his image; not using himself as an example.
Posted by FMAlchemist 7 years ago
This is going to be interesting. Good luck everyone.I'm an atheist so i agree with the contender.Let's see how this is going to end!
Posted by Mr.Lincoln 7 years ago
I am a catholic
Posted by KhalifV 7 years ago
What god are you arguing for? I wanna debate long as it's not pantheism or vague deism. Are you a christian?
Posted by Mr.Lincoln 7 years ago
Any god
Posted by KhalifV 7 years ago
define god
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by YaHey 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G: "Because of why are we even here" in the third round. Arguments: Pro didn't meet their burden of proof, and their arguments seemed to hinge on arguments from ignorance. "Why are we here?" They also didn't refute most of any of Con's points. Only Con used sources.

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