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

God's existence - cannot be proven

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 914 times Debate No: 24160
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




Depends on the level of proof you want, and how you define God. But ultimately, if you define God in any meaningful terms, or with substantial level of proof, God's existence cannot be proven.

incidentally. I believe in God's existence, but I don't claim it's definitive proof.
the act of faith -- of its very nature -- involves man's free choice libero arbitrio

everything we know has a cause. but we also have to recognize that we don't come across God phenomenon everyday, so to speak. if the first cause is God, wouldn't he required a cause too? God doesn't necessarily solve the problem.
if God can just be, the universe can just be.

Atheists often talk about how the spaghetti monster disproves God, cause we could have been formed by it. This is not analogous completely, but it makes an important point. That an intelligence made is is reasonable, that something specific like spaghetti did is random. But, it's still the point that it's arbitrary, like the spaghetti monster, to say intelligence is necessary.

Now, It does make sense say something caused us. If you see a bike rolling, that something pushed it makes sense. Ultimately this analogy does not necessarily fly either though, because a bike is specific, whereas the world is something that could have always been. (if god can alway have been, the world could always have been) we'd expect something specific to have a specific cause, but in something that's unique unto itself like existence as we know it, that isn't necessarily expected- we know bikes roling have causes cause we see it all the time it's the only thing to conclude at that level of specificity, and they're (creation v. bike) different things that could reasonably be treated different per anaysis.
So we have the spaghetti monster on the one side and the bike on the other, ha.

In broader terms, there is the argument a fortiori. if there's an unending chain of events back in time, something must have made that chian- if existance is, even if infinte, it has to be here as an effect of something.
but, as i was saying, not necessarily. If that can just be, so can God.

Some people insist there's "something" that just "has" to be. As Ronald Knox put it, you can add as many links and as large as you like to a chain, but at some point you have to have a peg to hang it on, reiterating the point of an infinite chain argument. Some people like to hang their argument on this "thing" that must just be.
it seems like this peg, or this thing that must just be regardless of existance is just extra fluff that theists use to say he must exist. cause if God an just be, existance can just be.
to say soemthing more needs to be is not necessary. ockham's razor, the simplest solution is prob right.
and even if there was oemthing more, it does't have to be God so much as the fabric of existance. it's just there and just is. that seems like part of existance to me, not soemthing separate from it. to use the metaphor, the peg is part of existance not soemthing separate from it.
and you can call it God, if it's even allowed to be argued that this just being is needed (which i don't think you can do) but that's not saying much.

now, the big bang actually helps verify the dogma of God's existence as certainty, because we stop talking about the never ending chain as much. But was there anything before the big bang? We shouldn't assume so, and if scientists are allowed to make presumptive deductions like this based on observations as a degree of proof, inductive while not deductive, the theologian should be able to too.
So, we see empiracally that there was a first cause, the big bang. if the big bang just happened as it were, is the first particles or group of particles that pushed the next ones then God? Or if it was random chance, is that God? To make God's existence mean anything, that is not God. If you define God as some abstract first cause, you're not defining him as much if it could just be a bunch of particles or random chance, or whatever.
-for example- imagine a 'primordial soup', just a bunch of things swirling around- that of it's nature just explodes producing the big bang. or some other ticking time bomb sceniario, that just is- like God can just be. or, the big bang wasn't the beginning absolutely, but really just the beginning from somewhere or sometime else considering dimensions etc.
-with a qualification. primordial soup, etc, has a sense of not being most intuitive. 'something about a ticking time bomb-ish scenario has too much inferential effect that something set it to explode'- 'even if something could just exist, like God- it's too much to expect a ticking time bomb would'--- this is a strong intuitive point for sure. and i think it does deserve respect, regardless of my thesis in this essay.
-if God can just be... then particles and those other scenarios can just be, or random chance can just occur.
So if particles etc and random chance are possible, then God's existence isn't proven. Even if we assume nothing before the big bang.

you'd just be stomping your foot saying that a first cause, ie God, can just be without a cause, cause he's the first cause and can't have a cause before him. it's like a leap of logic that's not necessarily warrnated or based on anything we've seen as humans empiracally.

definitive proof would be proving either logically that there was a first cause, beyond particles and random chance. proving that there wasn't anything before the big bang that went back on and on. as of now we just have evidence for God. like if you see a dark spot, you have evidence that it's a shadow and thus would need an object causing it, but it could also be a natural dark spot where the sun don't shine. (no i'm not saying in anyone's behind.....) i think it'd be techincally inductive proof not deductive.

same for intelligence. that there is order to hte universe doesn't prove God.
First, you're arguing that something complex, ie existance, was created by something that would be presumably even mroe complex?
where'd complexity of God come? if God complexity can just be, the universe can.
ockham's razor. The simplest solution would be the most probable.
and even if you conceive of God as nearly pure simplicity, it's still in principle if not more complex in the sense of complicated nature, existence is more complex in the sense that God is just an extra layer. again, ockham's razor.

that order could just be could mean that order just happened to occur, if we assume random chance and particles.
if you define intelligence as order then sure, but that's not saying much. you have to give the intelligence consciousness to mean anything substantial.

same with somethign complex like a watch. it's just proof, even more proof, but not exhaustive. when you look at something complex like a watch, it didn't spring up out of nowhere. it got here as an end product of earth formation, and evolution, and trial and errors and all that. if it did just spring up, you'd have something.
if life can form from elementary particles, that would eventially give rise to evolution to complexity.

but, order, to the magnitude that exists with humans etc, tends to be almost miraclous to some. i don't think it's unreasonable to argue that order is so complex as to be almost miracalous, and put it in the proof for God category. but, i think that it could have just evolved to what it is supports the no definitive proof argument. the ultimate question remains, that why would something complex require something even more complex?

high order is indicative of "irreducible complexity" see wikipedia, and so inteligent consciousness but not definitively.

"God as existance". etc a catharisis so theists can certainly claim God exists. no one would deny existance, rational people anyway. and you can call that God if you want, but it's not saying much


I accept. I woud like to specify that I do not believe in god. I do believe though that god can be proven. So keep in mind that this is all hypothetical.

exist-Have reality or being

prove-Demonstrate by evidence or argument

you obviously can prove somethings existence. You cannot prove that something does not exist, but everything can be theoretically proven to exist. So let's start with the obvious. Cannot be proven means that under NO circumstance can it be proven. Therefore, If I provide 1 way that it could be proven, I have won.

way #1 god could reveal him/her/it-self
If god reveals him/her/it-self to humanity then you cannot say that he/she/it does not exist.

way #2 god could reverse time to the time of creation and make it clear that he/she/it exists
if he/she/it reversed time and recreated the universe, with a connection between the known universe, heaven, and hell then people would have no way of denying it's existence.

now I have provided two ways god could prove his/her/it's existence. The only way you could still say that god cannot be proven is to show me how both of these would not prove his/her/it's existence. I look forward to your rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 1


dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.


my argument extends into the next round
Debate Round No. 2


dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.


waterskier forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Mrparkers 6 years ago
dairygirl4u2c forfeiting? What a surprise.
Posted by socialpinko 6 years ago
Are you going to post an argument?
Posted by waterskier 6 years ago
@Ore_Ele a win is a win lol.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Easy semantics win is possible with this.
Posted by EvanK 6 years ago
Duh! Sure he can't be proven, but he cannot be disproven either!
Posted by Cruxispal 6 years ago
well obviously, that's the same as saying God's Non-Existance, cannot be proven. Why do people these days always want the obvious arguments -.-
No votes have been placed for this debate.