The Instigator
Con (against)
1 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
12 Points

Is it reasonable to believe in God?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 844 times Debate No: 56611
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)




I'd like to begin by saying I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic; I would be happy to embrace evidence of a God. I will begin by attempting to debunk two things, leaving the powerful arguments last, as the rebuttal is much more influential than the introduction: omnipotence and the origins of morals. Let us begin with omnipotence.

A God is said to have the power to do anything and everything. When I say God, I'm not talking about the Judea-Christian God, but God in general. It is impossible to have the ability to do anything when limiting one's self is an option. Can God make a substance so heavy that even he cannot move it? Wouldn't that defeat the meaning of omnipotence?
What if God can see the future? The question is, which one? There is no absolute future, as the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle taught in Modern Physics 201 tells us that nature, at the most fundamental level is probabilistic. This also concludes the Free Will debate, however I wont get into that. Now lets start from scratch (without debunking omnipotence) and say that free will does not exist; there is a definite future for everyone. If God knows the future, why would he bother judging us? This is 16th century Calvinism; the concept of predestination is that God already knows who to save and who to burn in hell. If God already knows that, then what is the point of anything? This defeats the point of judgement itself, and shows how unreasonable a belief in such a God would be. If God is to be seen as rational, logical and free of error, then why would he (or she) be doing such a thing?

Now, let us begin with the origins of morality, which should not take long as this is simply an introduction. Morals essentially emerged from rational thinking, not God. When you stab somebody and then get stabbed yourself, you begin to think "Hey, why don't we both stop stabbing each other and inflicting pain, and just leave each other in peace? That way, none of us will get hurt". This is called rational thinking. The basis of morality stems from the fact that we do not want to feel pain ourselves, therefore we shouldn't inflict pain on others. Religions do nothing but reinforce that.

I will now conclude my (very) brief introduction, and I would like to thank Mike for participating. I hope both of us along with any audience members may benefit from this debate.


Thank you FieldTheory for bringing up this debate. Good luck. I would like to begin by addressing your points: From your point of view God cannot be omnipotent, He can't see the future, and morality came from rational thinking and not through God. I would like to debunk all of your arguments very shortly.
First: Can God be Omnipotent?
your example was: "Can God make a substance so heavy that even he cannot move it? Wouldn't that defeat the meaning of omnipotence?" My answer: "This is a common question that is asked by those who misunderstand the nature of God"s omnipotence. Another humorous way of asking this question is: Can God make a sandwich so big he can"t eat it? When Christians claim that God is omnipotent (all-powerful), they do not mean that he can do anything. We mean that God can do anything that is logically possible. God"s omnipotence exists in concert with all of his other attributes, not as a stand-alone attribute. Therefore, when we don"t understand the other attributes of God, we get stumped by questions like this. Here is a brief list of some things God cannot do, based on his other attributes cease to exist " a being whose very nature is being cannot cease to be; that"s logically impossible love evil " a being who is all-good cannot love evil; that"s logically impossible make a copy of himself " God is infinite, and two infinite beings cannot exist; that"s logically impossible change his nature - an unchanging (immutable) being cannot change; that"s logically impossible. - see more at

Your next argument was that the future is uncertain based on the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. I would like to say that your understanding of this principle is flawed to begin with. Let me define it. The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle - The statement in quantum mechanics, formulated by Werner Heisenberg, that it is impossible to measure two properties of a quantum object, such as its position and momentum (or energy and time), simultaneously with infinite precision. (see also wikiapedia,, and
However your question still has it's point. If God knows the future, then why bother witnessing? God knows who is going to get saved. My answer: If God just forgot this thing called life, and brought us all to judgment day, a lot of people that would have been saved, would not have had the chance to be saved. What I am trying to say is God is infinite. We are not. And trying to explain how or why a infinite God does what He does to a finite human is impossible logically. Our human understanding cannot possibly understand His purpose.

Your last argument is that morality came from rational thinking. I would like to debunk this by asking, would you agree that if you stabbed someone, you could really care less about what they feel if there are no morals. It is only when it hurts you that you decide it is wrong. I know you have moral absolutes. We all do. God gave them to us. That is how we know for example killing someone is wrong, because if you killed someone, you would not get hurt yourself in theory, only the person that died would. Same with crimes like rape, theft, ect. You know they are wrong, even if they never happened to you. There is no way around moral absolutes, no matter how hard you try.

Thanks for listening to my side. As I said I will be leaving for vacation tomorrow, but I will be back Tuesday. By the way, I would like to define who has the BOP. I am not sure after round one.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for responding, Mike; hope you enjoy your vacation.
As for the Heisenberg uncertainty principle: I know what that is, its just that I was confusing metaphysics with physics. It was an error on my part. If you'd like to see how quantum mechanics effects the macroscopic world and how the uncertainty principle is involved you can check out this paper (optional):

Its my turn to handle the BOP when it comes to the science.

Back to the topic at hand:
You never debunked my argument about how moral values were derived from rational thinking. Rational thinking derived from evolution. Do you believe in evolution? Well, the difference between creationism and evolution is that evolution is a scientific theory, which is used to make predictions (and it does). I'll leave Creationism alone as it is not well motivated and is not the point of this discussion.

Let me restate my argument about rational thinking and moral values to make it a bit more clear.
My hypothesis (and I emphasize hypothesis; nobody has all the answers) is that through some game theory (which is defined to be "the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision makers" (Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict, Harvard University Press, p. 1)) and sociological evolution (where humans gain more experience and wisdom), people have learned that if they do not want to be pestered with, they should not pester others. I'm sure you do not want to get shot up by the mafia, therefore you are not going to attempt a drive by shooting in hopes of killing the boss. This is probably ONE of the factors that lead to moral values.

On to my next argument:

The Earth is 4.5 Billion years old and here's why:
The age of the Earth was measured by geologists who went about "observing the relative age sequence of rock units in a given area and determining, from stratigraphic relations, which rock units are younger, which are older, and what assemblages of fossils are contained in each unit."
This resulted in:
They found out that "Although early stratigraphers could determine the relative order of rock units and fossils, they could only estimate the lengths of time involved by observing the rates of present geologic processes and comparing the rocks produced by those processes with those preserved in the stratigraphic record. With the development of modern radiometric dating methods in the late 1940s and 1950s, it was possible for the first time not only to measure the lengths of the eras, periods, and epochs but also to check the relative order of these geologic time units."
They used Radiometric dating, which confirmed the previous figures, however this limited them to only the past 600 million years. In order to find the most approximate age, they must "search for and date the oldest rocks exposed on the surface of the Earth. These oldest rocks are metamorphic rocks with earlier but now erased histories, so the ages obtained in this way are minimum ages for the Earth. Because the Earth formed as part of the Solar System, a second approach is to date extraterrestrial objects, i.e., meteorites and samples from the Moon. Many of these samples have not had so intense nor so complex histories as the oldest Earth rocks, and they commonly record events nearer or equal to the time of formation of the planets. The third approach, and the one that scientists think gives the most accurate age for the Earth, the other planets, and the Solar System, is to determine model lead ages for the Earth, the Moon, and meteorites. This method is thought to represent the time when lead isotopes were last homogeneously distributed throughout the Solar System and, thus, the time that the planetary bodies were segregated into discrete chemical systems. The results from these methods indicate that the Earth, meteorites, the Moon, and, by inference, the entire Solar System are 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old.". The source is the website I previously linked.

Now, the Universe itself is 13.8 billion years old, and this is provided through the cosmic microwave background.
Why would God create the universe, then wait almost 10 billion years for the Earth to form, then wait another 4 billion years for life to evolve, and then suddenly reveal the secret to some random Jew? Does that seem logical to you? It certainly doesn't to me.

My next argument is about ethics.
Now if you agree that God created us (and I don't), why would he be so interested in us? We are puny, potentially non-existent life forms that are one of probably many others sprinkled across the Cosmos. Why would a God, a superhuman being who supposedly created the Universe, torture those of us who don't believe in him for an eternity? Is this some sort of sick test? If you had some children who didn't look up to you, would you torture them for eternity (and I emphasize eternity) and put them through unimaginable agony?

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. " Mark 16:16

According to Jesus, only a few will be saved; the vast majority will suffer eternally in hell where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Luke 13:23-30

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:18 ---> Those who don't believe in God are condemned to hell.

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." John 3:36 ---> Those who do not believe in Jesus will feel the wrath of God.

"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." Paul 1:27
This verse shows intolerance towards homosexuals.

All of these are part of the New Testament, and so are these:
How does a God like that get so offended when people don't believe in him or when people insult him? You know that arguing with an idiot will get you nowhere, so why would God who is supposedly infinite in knowledge bring all that hate on us, a species that knows very little and is only trying to learn more about the universe that we inhabit. Why such a hateful God?

As for my last question, do you think God is a good hypothesis for the origins of the universe?


Hi again FieldTheory, thanks, I will enjoy my vacation.
I thought I did debunk your morals argument, but If not I will try again. Moral Values: Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" and those that are "bad". The philosophy of morality is ethics.
I take it from your theory on how morals came to be you don't believe in moral absolutes? Example: It is ok to murder if this person is a really "bad" person. Without God, there is no definite "good" and no definite "bad". And a world like that is a scary thing. In your argument against morals, you said that if a person stabbed someone, he would stop if the other person stabbed him back. The point I was trying to prove was, this fairly makes sense for something such as hurting someone else and them hurting you back, but how do you know things that have never happened to you are wrong? Is it wrong to lie? Is it wrong to steal? Yes? No? Sometimes? Everyone if they were being honest would answer yes, because God has coded that into your mind. The definitions of right and wrong.

Your next argument I believe you are bringing over our other debate into this one. However, here are some nice links for you to look at. Plus, see our other debate on how it is logically and scientifically impossible for the earth and universe to be Billions of years old. Thus saying this, I will not go into detail about this here. Post on our other debate if you want, I will answer there.

Your last argument - Ethics:
Why would God be interested in us? He made us to be a friend for Him. He is interested because He made us. If you made something, wouldn't you spend time to take care of it? You said that there may be other life forms in the Cosmos. I don't believe there is but if so, God is omnipresent, He can be everywhere doing more than one thing. So it is not like He could just be loving us, although according to the Bible man is God's special creation, above everything else God made. Another point you made is why does God send people to hell? It is because you violated His perfect law (He made very clear what His rules were), and therefore must face a penalty. God is your judge. And would a good judge in a court of law be able to just let your sins go? Someone would have to pay the penalty. But because God loves us so much, He sent His son to die for us, so that if we accept Him, He will take our penalty. Look at it this way. You murderer, and the judge is about to sentence you to the death penalty, and the judge's son stands up and says "I will take his penalty. If he accepts it." Wouldn't you accept it? And your eternity is far more valuable than your life.
Debate Round No. 2


FieldTheory forfeited this round.


Am I to assume That I have won the debate sense you have forfeited?
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by POPOO5560 7 years ago
Fieldtheory well if you realily want to find a good reasons evidence of God, here good lecture...
its talking about things like - God & the beginning of the universe through empiricism and rationalism.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by johnlubba 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 Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff.

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