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

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
Jade5600 has forfeited round #5.
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: Select Winner
Started: 9/18/2018 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 547 times Debate No: 118277
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




I'm unconvinced that a God exists. Persuade me.


I will be defending two main assertions

1. There are good arguments that theism is true

2. There are no comparably good arguments that atheism is true

I will be defending my first assertion in my opening statement and wait for my opponent to present his/her opening statement before proceeding to defend it.

My first argument is the Cosmological Argument

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. The universe has a cause

by definition this cause must transcend space and time and must be personal because there are two things that transcend space and time

1. Abstract objects (like numbers)
2. An unembodied mind

Since numbers can't cause things, We must conclude to an unembodied mind.

My second argument is the Teleological Argument

In the universe there are certain constants and quantities that are very specifically finely tuned for life in the universe. To give a few examples of this fine tuning:

If the gravitational force was hypothetically stretched across the universe, If it were moved as little as one inch, Then no life on earth.

If the strong force was off by less than a hair's breadth, Then no life on earth.

These are just a few examples of this fine tuning. There are three main explanation for this fine tuning

1. Physical necessity
2. Chance
3. Design

First, It can't be due to physically necessity, Because the constants and quantities lie outside the laws of nature. There are many scenarios where the universe can be not fine tuned for life.

Second, It can't be due to chance, Because the chances are astronomically low that a finely tuned universe like ours could support life.

Therefore we must attribute the fine tuning of the universe to design.

My third and final argument for my opening statement is the Moral Argument

1. If God does not exist, Objective moral values exist
2. Objective moral values exist
3. God exists

What I am not saying, Is "all atheists are bad". Secular people can follow moral law designated by a moral law giver, Without being familiar with the objectivity of the moral law or the existence of the moral law giver. What this argument is saying is that without God, Morality is not objective; there is nothing that can be designated objectively wrong (objective meaning regardless of human opinion).

These are my opening three arguments for Theism and I will add more as needed. I thank my opponent Jade5600 for agreeing to do this debate with me. I await your reply.
Debate Round No. 1


Hi cello242, Thank you for accepting my challenge.

As for my response:

1 - How do you know the universe began to exist? What makes you say it's not eternal?

2 - I'm fine with believing that it happened through chance. Any set of constants and quantities would've been astronomically unlikely.

3 - Your third argument presupposes that objective moral values exist. I'd like to see some evidence for this claim.


Thank you for responding to my opening statement. Lets address your questions.

1. How do I know that the universe began to exist?

In 1929 an astronomer called Edwin Hubble looked through his telescope and made a startling discovery about the universe. He observed that the universe is expanding at a very fast pace, Which could only mean that if the universe is expanding, It must have begun at a point a finite time ago.

The Big Bang Theory gives good evidence that the universe is not past eternal, And is still the leading theory in cosmology today. Other theories like steady state theory, Bubble universe theory, Oscillating universe theory, And others describing a universe that is past eternal, Have all failed.

In 2003, Three physicists Arvinde Borde, Alan Guth, And Alexander Vilenkin released a paper that described BGV theorem, Which is a principle that stated that no universe model with a cosmic expansion can be past eternal, But had an absolute beginning.

What is remarkable is that this theorem even covers any multiverse or world ensemble theory. Even if a multiverse theory is proven, It must have an absolute beginning.

2. I am deeply sorry that I was so vague on this argument. You are quite right that any set of constants and quantities are unlikely, But what I am saying is that any chances of a universe constants and quantities that are able to support life anywhere in that universe are infinitesimally small. According to chance, What should have happened is that the universe would not be capable of supporting life at all.

3. I made a mistake on my wording for it in my opening statement. This was supposed to be the argument.

1. If God does not exist, Then objective moral values do not exist

2. Objective moral values exist

3. God exists

Well everyone knows that objective moral values exist, We just don't call them that. If objective moral values didn't exist, Then we would be left to a socio-cultural relativism and no one could say that anyone has committed a moral atrocity. Here are some examples.

Was the Nazi ethic wrong? If objective moral values exist, Then the Nazis were wrong for the industrial killing of Jews even though the Nazis thought it was good. Otherwise we could not truly say that they were wrong because there would not be any moral values or duties outside of human opinion. If they thought it was good, Then no one can say they were wrong.

Would you say that the Catholic Church was wrong for sexually abusing little boys and the church trying to cover it up?

Would you say the Hindu practice of burning alive widows on the stake of their dead husbands?

If the answer to these is yes, Then Objective moral values exist because it means that these things were wrong despite any belief to the contrary that those things were good.

Deep down we all know this to be true. Some things are truly wrong.

These arguments defend my first assertion that there are good arguments that theism is true.
Unless you have any arguments that atheism is true, Then my second assertion remains unchallenged.

Back to you
Debate Round No. 2


I concede. I must admit that I cannot formulate a response that's intellectually honest, Or one that refutes anything you said.
Kudos, You've really opened my eyes on this topic. (I still disagree with you on the objective morals part, But that doesn't really matter as arguments one and two did the job)

cell242 is the winner.


Thanks to my opponent for participating in this debate. I thank you for being intellectually honest and truly open minded about this topic.

If you have any questions about evidence for the divinity of Jesus, Or any more questions just let me know and I will be more than happy to provide any answers I can :)
Debate Round No. 3


And I'd like to apologize for such a weak showing, My superior :P

I'm still very much a newbie when it comes to debating God, So yeah. I initially intended on stealing arguments from other atheists, But that would be extremely disingenuous. Sometimes, You've just got to acknowledge that your opponent has a point, Instead of desperately trying to defend yourself.

BTW - do we just put filler in the other rounds? There doesn't seem to be a forfeit button.


This is my first debate on God"s existence so I"m pretty much a newbie too :P. And don"t feel bad about using arguments from other atheists because most of them use the same ones. All arguments in philosophy are shared, So don"t feel bad. All of the arguments I used were developed by various Christian apologists and theologians. But you are quite right that a good philosopher should change his or her mind if they find an argument they can"t refute. I am glad that we both can follow the evidence where it leads, And obviously I believe that the evidence leads to God.

Yeah you usually just don"t answer within a given timeframe in order to forfeit, But then the time clock will freeze and the debate won"t end for some reason. So fillers are the only way to end it unfortunately :/
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Nartnod7875 3 years ago
You're welcome. 😁
Posted by cello242 3 years ago
Yes: correction

If God does not exist, Objective moral values do not exist. Thank you for pointing out that typo
Posted by Nartnod7875 3 years ago
Do you mean: If God exists, Objective moral values exist?
Posted by Nartnod7875 3 years ago
Do you mean DISembodiiiiiiieeeed?
This debate has 0 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.