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

Resolved: God Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/19/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,927 times Debate No: 73632
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (3)




Forwarded to Furyan5. There is a minimum Elo requirement of 2,500 to vote on this debate. This debate shall follow a 7 point voting system. There shall be 4 rounds of debate, each with a character limit of 10,000 (which is the DDO maximum). 72 hours are given to each debater to post an argument.

Full Resolution

God Exists

BoP lies with Pro.


God - "... the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, sentient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions." [1]

Exists - "has physical, objective reality or being." [2]


1. The debate structure is given below.
2. No forfeiture.
3. No trolling, lawyering or critiques/kritiks of the topic.
4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate.
5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument.

Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.

Debate Structure

Round 1: Pro's case
Round 2: Con presents case and rebuts Pro's case, Pro refutes and defends
Round 3: Con refutes and defends, Pro refutes, defends and concludes
Round 4: Con refutes, defends and concludes, Pro waives




First of all i'd like to thank Con for the invitation to dabate this topic.

Common sense dictated that any event having 2 likely prerequisites, the one most probable is on BOP correct.
The odds of a life sustaining body to develope in the universe by random chance are 1 in 10 to the power 282 (or a million followed by 23 trillions)
And this is just for the earth to exist. Considering that odds of life evolving to what we see today being random are also astranomical. To all intents and purposes its impossible for life to exist due to just random occurances which leaves only 1 other possibilty. Design.

The design shows signs of intelligence, therefore intelligent design. Lets call this designer God. Now what are the odds God exist?

Considering the fact that we have no proof for or against the existance of God, the odds are 1 in 2. Now I'm no betting man, but that is about as close to a sure thing as one can get.

What many struggle with are the seeming contradictions attributed to such a being. Well what proof is there that we are the subject of creation? For all we know, God loves flowers. We are but a byproduct of evolution. Manure to feed the plants. And do you really believe we are capable of understanding the concept of a supreme being outside our limited perceptions? Can a dog know the moral implications of slavery as it lies contentedly at its masters feet? To believe we can is arrogance.

I have a theory. I'm in no way saying its true but it gives me peace. What could an eternal, allpowerful, sentient being want? The only thing my limited intellect could come up with is companionship. Obviously God could create copies. But that would just be talking to himself. This/these companion/s would have to develope independantly of God to have his/their own views and opinions. Therefore apart from creating the universe God needs to remove himself completely from the situation and hope we dnt destroy ourselves. We have a long way to go and it saddens me that I won't be around when God reveals himself, but I take solace in the fact that I am part of the team building humanity to its ultimate conclusion. Godhood.

Here I rest my case. Good luck Con.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank Pro for their arguments. I shall begin with my contentions and then move onto the refutations.


C1) Quantum Superposition

All particles are at a state known as a quantum superposition, i.e. when a particle moves towards a point, it moves in all routes toward the point simultaneously, but it will seem as if it is moving only in one route. This is illustrated in the analogy of Erwin Schrödinger’s cat, which presents a scenario in which a cat is both alive and dead at the same time, but it can be observed only as either alive or dead. [1] For God to create the universe, he acts as an external cause; an omniscient external cause is naturally all-observing, via. the definition of omniscient, “all-seeing and all-knowing.” An external cause is, therefore, naturally all-observing, and this is impossible via. this contention:

P1: An external cause will be omniscient and, therefore, all-observing.
P2: Observation collapses quantum superpositions.
P3: An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions.
P4: We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.
C: Therefore, an external cause or omniscient being (God) cannot exist.

C2) Causality is Not Required

There is sufficient evidence at present to justify the belief that the universe began to exist without being caused to do so. This evidence includes the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems that are based on Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and the recently introduced Quantum Cosmological Models of the early universe. The singularity theorems lead to an explication of the beginning of the universe that involves the notion of a Big Bang singularity, and the Quantum Cosmological Models represent the beginning largely in terms of the notion of a vacuum fluctuation. Theories that represent the universe as infinitely old or as caused to begin are shown to be at odds with or at least unsupported by these and other current cosmological notions.” [2]

As mentioned above, Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose calculated the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems, that demonstrate that the universe began to exist without a cause, violating Empedocles’ laws of classical physics via. the idea of a gravitational singularity. [3]

An example of this is a quantum mechanical fluctuation. During these vacuum fluctuations, a particle and an antiparticle exist for a very short time, and annihilate with a great release of energy. This does not violate any physical laws, as explained by Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. As these reactions take place within the vacuum state, we can thus derive that the quantum vacuum is the source of all potentiality. [4]

Therefore, the universe can function without the existence of God.

C3) Logical Incoherencies

The existence of God is a subject of logical incoherence, viz. God’s properties of omnipotence, omniscience, etc. are not metaphysically possible. I shall illustrate how.

CIIIA. Omnipotence

As illustrated in the rather well-known Paradox of the Stone, omnipotence is impossible. The Paradox of the Stone takes this structure:

P1: An omnipotent being can perform any action, natural or supernatural.

P2: If P1, then an omnipotent being should be able to create an action which it cannot perform.

C1: If P2 is true, then as the omnipotent being cannot perform that action, it is not omnipotent.

C2: If P2 is false, then the omnipotent being cannot perform the action of creating that action, ergo, it is not omnipotent.

CONCLUSION: Omnipotence is impossible. [5]

CIIIB. Omniscience

If God is omniscient, then God knows everything with absolute certainty. If everything is known with absolute certainty, then nothing is contingent. Lack of contingencies violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that states that the entropy and randomness in the movements of particles in a thermodynamic system is high and is constantly increasing. [6] As omniscience violates the Second Law, it is impossible.

C4) Occam’s Razor

The Law of Parsimony, a form of Occam’s Razor, posits that out of two explanations, the explanation with least assumptions is a priori more likely. The explanation of a naturalistic origin only assumes a physical universe with its laws, while the theistic explanation assumes a universe, its laws, and the existence of God.


R1) Teleology

The argument from teleology (design) presented by my opponent is refuted by the Second Law once more. As stated before, “design” cannot exist simply because of the rise of entropy in the universe. Ergo, the universe is one of dysteleology, not teleology.

R2) Mathematical Probability

Penrose’s calculations merely illustrated that the universe arose out of chance is unlikely; design is not the only other viable option. Penrose, an atheist, also showed that the universe existed out of necessity due to the bending of spacetime creating a vector form of negative energy: gravity. This is supported by the zero-energy universe hypothesis, that states that the negative energy from gravity exactly cancels out the scalar energy of the universe, making the sum of all energy in the universe of a net value of zero. [7]


[1] Gribbin, John (2011). In Search of Schrodinger's Cat: Quantum Physics And Reality. Random House Publishing Group. p. 234. ISBN 0307790444.

2] Smith, Quentin (1988). “The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe.” Philosophy of Science. 55:1. pp. 39-57. []

[3] Hawking, S. and Penrose, R. (1965). “Singularities in Homogeneous World Models.” Physical Letters. 17:246-247.







Are you claiming that our kniwledge of the universe is complete? That everything we believe impossible to us is indeed impossible? That our grasp of reality is so complete we can define God?

Lol the earth is flat.....

The smarter we get, the more we realise we do not know.

I propse that God exists outside our realm of existence and has created little devices for observation purposes. Lets for arguments sake call them souls. They have no physical attributes and therefore no effect on our realm. But they do allow god to be omnipresent.

Furthermore I was not talking about creation and its cause. I was referring to the earth existing and able to support life. To call the possibilty unlikely is like comparing finding a needle in a heystack to finding one particular grain of sand in a desert. The possibilty that everything happened and is still happening exactly the way it needs to for us to exist is 1 in 1000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 another 47 000's. I may be out by a couple of 000's. Think about that.... put aside your scientific beliefs as you know our understanding is limited. Put aside your preconceptions and bias. Put aside your pride and arrogance. Look at the scale of the universe and realise how insignificant you are. Without a creator our chance of being here is so small its almost impossible.

But with a creator its not only possible but inevitable. In itself that is no argument. But honesly ask yourself, what are the odds God exists? What are the odds he doesn't? If you give the odds of god existing less than 1 in 10 to the power 283 then on BOP we are damn lucky to be here.

I for one don't believe in luck. Do you?
Debate Round No. 2


Pro has neither defended their arguments nor have they refuted mine. This is a critique of the topic. The BoP is on Pro to prove that it is likely that God exists. Pro is merely rephrasing the teleological arguments without responding to my refutation of it.

God, as stated in the definition, is to be considered the creator and ruler of the UNIVERSE. Pro has not fulfilled their BoP.

Even if such a being exists, why does he need to be omnipotent, omniscient, et cetera?

The odds on God existing are less; I clearly responded to this in the last round via. the calculations of Roger Penrose, and by the zero-energy universe hypothesis.

I extend all my arguments. The resolution remains negated. Pro has not fulfilled the rules/definitions, has not defended their arguments and has not responded to mine.

"Put aside your pride and arrogance." - this can be interpreted as an ad hominem attack.



lol vote con!!!! A bit presumptuous of you.

I asked a question in the last round which you did not answer. Probably bacause the answer is obvious. The answer is NO! Man can not claim to fully understand the universe. Much less God. We have heard the arguments why he's existsnce is impossible et nausium. But your logic is flawed because your knowledge is limited. I will give you one axample.

In your example of Occams Razor you put 2 examples before us. You forget to divide the first example by random probability. So the first example would be more like A * 10 billion trillion etc etc. Example 2 would be A * 1 God * (possibilty that god exists). Now once again let me point out, my argument is not about the creation or existance of the universe but only the odds of life existing. All things being equal from the time of creation/big bang. There are only 2 possibilities. Design or random. What are the chances we would be alive for option 1. 100%. What are the chances we would be alive in option 2? Much less. That I believe satisfies BOP.

Now as for Gods attributes. Perfect. Omnicient. Omnipotent. Gobbldygook. These are words. Words created by us to define concepts. Well here's a word. Love. Can anyone define love? I love coffee. I love my children. does it have the same meaning? Does the meaning vary from person to person? What constitutes love? Concepts are not easy to explain but I will try with my limited understanding. God is a creature of which no greater can be imagined. Therefore perfect. I think its good to be alive and I'm alive thanks to god. Therefore benevolent. God can destroy the univerese at will. Therefore omnipotent Sentient? that's obvious. As well as knowing all things that can be known. But even God has limits. Many things are possible to god that are impossible to us but some things are impossible. As for the object of faith, we are all limited by our understanding so we give form to god as we are able. Be it God, Allah,Jah etc God is a concept that we try to grasp. Until we can grasp God we cant argue his attributes or prove them.

Although by our understanding of the universe God can not exist we can't argue that without him we would have to be very very very very * a trillion lucky to exist. Perhaps its not Gods existance we should question but our understanding of the universe.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent has not sought to prove the existence of God in any manner, instead making irrelevant kritiks on how our understanding of the universe is not complete. Yes, it is not complete. That does not prove the existence of God in any manner nor does it show that God's existence is more likely. The BoP is on Pro, not Con. Pro is committing the fallacy of negative proof.

You must show that God is more likely to exist physically, not just show how IF God exists, what his characteristics would be.

"I'm alive thanks to God."

You have to prove this.

"Perhaps its not Gods existance we should question but our understanding of the universe."

Perhaps, but this still qualifies as a kritik.


1. Pro did not present any arguments for the existence of God.
2. Pro did not refute any of my arguments.
3. Pro used a nihilist kritik to attack the arguments, violating the rules.
4. Pro did not fulfill their BoP, instead shifting the BoP without any arguments.
5. Pro had many S&G mistakes, e.g. spelling "existence" as "existance".
6. Pro did not use any sources.

Give me a 7-point victory. Vote Con. Pro must waive the next round by simply typing "round waived".


Con is mistaken. I do not have to prove I am here because god created me. I simply have to prove its more likely. My arguments on mans incomplete understanding of the universe simply serve to invalidate cons proof that god can't exist. If you believe I have shown intelligent design to be more likely than random luck then then vote Pro.

Thanks for an interesting debate Con
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Furyan5 3 years ago
No, what's lame is a bunch of parrots paraphrasing google for points to impress other parrots. Are there any freethinkers here? Originals with new concepts and ideas?
Posted by Benshapiro 3 years ago
Con these debates where you put the BoP on pro are lame. Have an actual debate with a shared BoP. You'd get slaughtered if you had a BoP to show that there was no God while your opponent had none.
Posted by Furyan5 3 years ago
Nb my profile pic.
Posted by CorieMike 3 years ago
lmao this debate was seriously laughable. Con I believe you should challenge people with more debating experience on the subject.
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
Corrected it. :p
Posted by Varrack 3 years ago
"First round is for acceptance"

"Round one: Pro's case"
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
What round structure?
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
also just to note your debate structure and your round structure are contradicting each other
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
look for about a 2 week turn around time

this is going to be after my team debate with whiteflame then ill go with it
Posted by Varrack 3 years ago
Is this Georgia font 3 or 4?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 3 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro criticized the definitions established by Con to describe God, and continually engaged in Kritiks, which is a 7-point violation according to the rules of the debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 3 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro drops all of Con's arguments and fails to uphold his arguments. He drops his own case and just K's the topic. His arguments are either statements with no backing, K's, or are completely dropped when con responds. Cons case is untouched. Con wins.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro engaged in kritiks by criticizing the words used to describe God. As per the rules, this is a seven point violation.