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

God's Existence

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
Mauricio.Moon 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: 5/22/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 408 times Debate No: 114188
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I am arguing that it it is logically plausible that God (meaning a supreme creator of the universe) exists.

My argument is a version of the argument from contingency:

If something is contingent then that means that it exists due to more fundamental components of reality. For example, the shape of a bottle is contingent upon the matter and energy that comprise it.

So here is the argument (informally presented)

1. Things are contingent upon more fundamental components of reality, until the ground of existence is reached which is not contingent upon anything.
2. The ground of existence must be greater than all contingent things in existence and therefore it must be without privation.
3. Something without privation must be supreme in all ways.
4. Therefore, contingent things exist due to the ground of existence which is supreme in all ways.

Now if the argument is accepted it proves a supreme being that gives existence to everything else. This is a basic description of God (meaning supreme creator of the universe).

What objections might one make?

Objection 1. They might argue that there could be an infinite series of contingent components and that therefore the ground of existence is never reached.

Response: Things are contingent upon a component that transcends the limitations of the contingent thing itself. This transcendence would ultimately bottom out at the ground of existence. So an infinite regress is not plausible.

Objection 2: One could argue that things are in fact not contingent upon anything more fundamental.

Response: This would be implausible since if something is not the ground of existence then it is by nature contingent upon more fundamental reality.

Objection 3: One could argue that the Big Bang explains why the universe exists.

Response: That is not relevant because the argument is not about the temporal beginning of the universe, but about what gives existence at all times to contingent things.

Objection 4: One could argue that we simply are not able to understand the universe at this point, so the argument is jumping to hasty conclusions.

Response: The argument is offering what is logically plausible. If one wants to maintain complete skepticism about the ability to draw conclusions about reality, then they can, however I do not have to adopt their skepticism.

Objection 5: The argument does not prove any specific religion true.

Response: I agree. I said at the beginning that it doesn't prove a specific religion true.


To start, I believe this is a wonderful topic...
My argument will be something based on logic...
Why did people believe in gods in ancient times?
The answer is quite simple in those times nothing could be explained since science had not reached the point of explanation. Let"s pretend you are in an ancient civilization and you see a flood or a volcano erupt, since there is no scientific explanation for what happened they said "oh, the god of rain is angry." or "oh, the god of earth is angry." This helped explain situations that could"t be explained in those times.
Now to refute one of the contingent arguments that was said, what gives existence to all contingent things... easy the answer is evolution. Believe it or not humans are constantly evolving at a steady rate... you might not see it now but maybe in 400 years humans will change and evolution will keep going. Science will also be evolving to answer big questions that the world has. It also includes the creation of the world.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for accepting the debate.

So to briefly summarize my opponent's argument. They seem to be saying that our knowledge of the natural world has grown over time. People used to invoke supernatural beings in order to explain events, but over time we have found natural explanations within the universe to explain those events. So, contingent things are also explained naturally by the process of evolution.

My response:

I have no problem with the theory of evolution and think it makes sense from a theological perspective. I think evolution can explain the process by which creatures have changed over time.

However, the argument that I posted is about what gives existence to the universe itself. So to use an analogy, imagine a building, the universe is the first floor of the building, but the ground of existence is the ground that holds up the first floor. So I am arguing that God is the ground of existence that gives existence (at all times) to the contingent universe.

So, the theory of evolution does not seem to directly factor into the argument since evolution is a process within the universe, but I am arguing about what gives existence to the contingent universe itself.

Now my opponent in response may argue that science could give an explanation for how the universe got here. However, even if science were to give an exhaustive explanation of the Big Bang etc. the argument would still remain as to what gives existence to the contingent universe.
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
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 2 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.