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

Proof of 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Supercatman 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: 7/20/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 425 times Debate No: 116735
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




So what's interesting is that I believe in God but I also believe that there isn't any proof of God other than little clues here and there. The reason I believe why we don't have proof of God is because this life is supposed to be a test. We are tested on our faith. If we were to have 100% proof of God, then it would destroy the purpose of the test. Like having a cheat sheet to a school test, you don't really learn if you just cheat your way through the test. I believe it is the same with the test of life and that we are supposed to learn for ourselves that God is real. (I am LDS/Mormon by the way for those wondering.)

Anyways, that is why I don't believe there is irrefutable proof of God.


I would argue that god exists

First argument
God is the only possible explanation for the universe. For evidence, I cite William Lane Craig of Biola University.

This conclusion has been confirmed by remarkable discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics. In one of the most startling developments of modern science we now have pretty strong evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past but had an absolute beginning about thirteen billion years ago in a cataclysmic event known as the Big Bang. What makes the Big Bang so startling is that it represents the origin of the universe from literally nothing, for all matter and energy, even physical space and time themselves, came into being at the Big Bang. As the physicist P. C. W. Davies explains, "The coming into being of the universe, as discussed in modern science, is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization upon a previous incoherent state but literally the coming into being of all physical things from nothing." Now, this puts the atheist in a very awkward position. As Anthony Kenny of Oxford University urges, "A proponent of the Big Bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing." But surely that doesn't make sense. Out of nothing, nothing comes. So why does the universe exist, instead of just nothing, where did it come from? There must have been a cause which brought the universe into being. Now as the cause of space and time, this being must be an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial being of unfathomable power. Moreover, it must be personal as well. Why? Because the cause must be beyond space and time, therefore it cannot be physical or material. Now there are only two kinds of things that fit that description: either an abstract object, like numbers, or else a personal mind. But abstract objects can't cause anything. Therefore it follows that the cause of the universe is a transcendent, intelligent mind.

Just to summarize, the argument is that something can't come from nothing. There had to be something there, some transcendent intelligent mind, i.e god.

2nd Argument

The modal ontological argument- "the Greatest conceivable being's existence in a possible world implies necessary existence in our world.

Himma (Kenneth Einar Himma, Seattle Pacific University, V2;Anselm: Ontological Argument for God's Existence,V3; IEP,

Perhaps the most influential of contemporary modal arguments is Plantinga's version. Plantinga begins by defining two properties, the property of maximal greatness and the property of maximal excellence, as follows: A being is maximally excellent in a world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect in W; and A being is maximally great in a world W if and only if it is maximally excellent in every possible world. Thus, maximal greatness entails existence in every possible world: since a being that is maximally great at W is omnipotent at every possible world and non-existent beings can't be omnipotent, it follows that a maximally great being exists in every logically possible world. Accordingly, the trick is to show that a maximally great being exists in some world W because it immediately follows from this claim that such a being exists in every world, including our own. But notice that the claim that a maximally great being exists in some world is logically equivalent to the claim that the concept of a maximally great being is not self-contradictory; for the only things that don't exist in any possible world are things that are conceptually defined in terms of contradictory properties. There is no logically possible world in which a square circle exists (given the relevant concepts) because the property of being square is inconsistent with the property of being circular. Since, on Plantinga's view, the concept of a maximally great being is consistent and hence possibly instantiated, it follows that such a being, i.e., God, exists in every possible world. Here is a schematic representation of the argument:

3rd Argument,

Godel's theorem of model logic proves God's existence.

Knight 13 [David Knight, Computer Scientists U8;ProveU9; God Exists, 2013, Spiegel Online,]

When Godel died in 1978, he left behind a tantalizing theory based on principles of modal logic -- that a higher being must exist. The details of the mathematics involved in Godel's ontological proof are complicated, but in essence the Austrian was arguing that, by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived. And while God exists in the understanding of the concept, we could conceive of him as greater if he existed in reality. Therefore, he must exist. Even at the time, the argument was not exactly a new one. For centuries, many have tried to use this kind of abstract reasoning to prove the possibility or necessity of the existence of God. But the mathematical model composed by Godel proposed a proof of the idea. Its theorems and axioms -- assumptions which cannot be proven --can be expressed as mathematical equations. And that means they can be proven. Proving God's Existence with a MacBook That is where Christoph Benzm"ller of Berlin's Free University andhis colleague, Bruno Woltzenlogel of the Technical University in Vienna, come in. Using an ordinary MacBook computer, they have shown that G"del's proof was correct -- at least on a mathematical level -- by way of higher modal logic. Their initial submission on the research article server is called "Formalization, Mechanization and Automation of G"del's Proof of God's Existence."

Thus I assert the existence of god.

On my opponent's arguments

His arguments concede the validity of god. If we are supposed to learn for ourselves that god is real, as he mentioned, this automatically asserts the existence of god. For irrefutable proof, refer to my Craig, Himma, and Knight evidence.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
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
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by ThinkTank33 3 years ago
Supercatman, your conclusion that the non-obviousness of God's existence is intentional is a theory I arrived at some years back. If he appeared in the sky and spoke with a thundering voice to humanity, then his existence becomes undeniable and people would have to serve him. A lot of people would be upset by this and they would be like, "oh great, now I have to stop smoking crack and go to church". In a way it's like coercion, and God has said he wants only willful servants.

He could have created man and programmed him to do everything right, essentially making us robots. But instead he gave us the gift of free will, and with that all he can do is sit back and see which ones choose to do the right thing and which do not.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
"Just to summarize, the argument is that something can't come from nothing. There had to be something there, some transcendent intelligent mind, i.e god."
To summarize:... something can't come from nothing. There had to be something.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
Better yet. There is a proof of GOD as a numerical axiom, and no proof of your belief as being nothing more than religion. What is frightening is the both of you share a bias that can sway constitutional impartiality.
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.