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

Resolved: God is more likely than not to exist.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,667 times Debate No: 106869
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (64)
Votes (2)




In order to accept this debate, you need to have ELO of 2500 and at least 10 debates completed.

First Round is rules and definitons by Pro and acceptance by Con.
Second Round is for Opening arguments, no rebuttals.
Third Round is continuing of Opening Arguments. Rebuttals are permitted.
Forth Round is for Rebuttals.
Fith Round is for rebuttals and conclusion.
No trolling.
No Kritiks.
No Counterplans
No Sparks Arguments.
No semantics, the definitions provided shall be the definitions used throughout the debate.
No profanity.
Burden of Proof will be shared.
Sources may be placed in the comments section if need be.
Minimum ELO to vote is 2500.
Deviations from these rules shall result in forfeiture of the Conduct point or the debate by the said violator.


God - the mind which grounds all reality.

Likely - probably.

Existent - having being; existing.


As I have accepted the arguement as a con !!! i would like to ask whether i have to prove gods existence or the god's disexistence? little confused...
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for this debate and wish them good luck.

Contention 1: TA Arguement

St. Thomas Aquinas's theory on Teleologic which is the ultamate causes of objects or actions in relation to their ends. This is from the 5th of Thomas Aquinas's theories explaining the existance of God. His theory is bellow.

1. If teleology exists, then an ordering intellect exists.
2. Teleology exists.
3. Therefore, an ordering intellect exists.

First, teleos exists on the basis that there must be intention which exists in the mind. If teleology truely exists then there must be intellect for it to be grounded to in the end. Edward Feser who states, "Where goal-directness is associated with consciousness, as it is in us, there is no mystery. A builder builds a house, and he is able to do so because the form of the house exists in his intellect because it is instantiated in a concrete particular object. And of course, the materials that will take on that form also exist already, waiting to take it on." [1]
Does teleology exist? Obvious, does the heart beat and pump blood because it just happens? No, it has a valid purpose of pumping blood to keep you alive. Without teleology there would be no purpose. There is an everday occurance of this. How else are we to say that a carborator needs replaced if it does not have a purpose? When we observe other things that are inorganic like the Nitrogen and Water Cycle we can see that they too have purpose, thus teleological by nature. [2]
We can see that since all teleology has to be grounded to a singel being in the universe. It is obvious that this high being has nothing else higher than it and is thus the greatest being in the universe which it would make sense to call this said being God.

6. Everything that had a beginning in time has a cause.
7. The universe had a beginning in time.
8. Therefore the universe had a cause.
9. The only thing that could have caused the universe is god.
10. Therefore, god exists. [3]

For the 6th premise we have already found that is true, so let's move on to the next premise.

Now for the 7th premise Ross writes this in support.

"By definition, time is that dimension in which cause-and-effect phenomena take place. No time, no cause and effect. If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and preexistent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who god is and who or what god isn't. It tells us that the Creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe." [4]

Here we can see that there has to be an entity controlling time and of which came before time. The entirety of everything had another dimension and this God was in another dimension and created the universe and all the laws of physics that we are still yet to even begin to comprehend. He later to go on to further back this up by providing Biblical verses and stating that it has to be that God has another time dimension and this is one of the reasons that we do not have concrete proof of him yet as we have yet to be able to travel in other dimensions which I'll get into in my next contention. [4]

Contention 2: Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (which I'll start refurring to as the KCA in order to save space) was created by William Lane Craig and is a simple theory that I have bellow.

(1) Everything that began to exist had a cause
(2) The universe began to exist
(3) The universe had a cause
(4) If the universe had a cause, that cause is God
(5) Therefore, God exists [5]

The 1st premise is true by the very laws a physics as it is a law of Conservation of Mass it shows that Matter can't be neither created nor destroyed. Meaning the Universe couldn't have been spontanously created as Big Bang opponent Flyod has stated. These things are not spontanous here. Like why doesn't the Earth suddenly expload? This is because the laws of Physics binds and restrics nothingness so we can see that for one to question the first premise would be to question regualrity.

Now let us move on to the second premise here which is backed both by scientce and philosophy. Craig agrues the Brode-Gruth-Velikum Theory that through the use of Red shift which shows that the universe is exspanding we can actually see that the universe, even if it is part of some multi-verse, still had to be created. [6] The philosophical side of this argument is that though many argue that the universe may be infinate the thing is that it is highly unlikely for things to exsist in an infinate chain and are thus had to have a starting finite point somwhere. Even if we look at Tyson's theory on how this universe started and that it is a multiverse we can still see that the universe, this one, had a beginning.

For the 4th Premise I will argue Monistic Idealism. Since it had a cause, the cause was transcendent meaning that it was timeless and spaceless. Only minds are from this sphere and if I can prove that God is a Mind/sphere then I win the debate.

Monistic idealism.

P1 Mind is mental
P2 Nothing mental can interact with what is non-mental
C1 Nothing mind interacts with is non-mental
P3 Mind interacts with reality
C2 Reality is mental

P1: Mind is mental.

P1: IF mind is matter, THEN solipsism is impossible (exists in no possible worlds).
P2: Solipsism is possible (does exist in some possible world).
C: Mind is not matter.

Metaphysical Solipsism shows that all exists within our own minds. Though we may think there is a world out there it is all actually in our minds. [7] Thus a world has to exist within our own minds and there are several reasons why this is completely true. It makes perfect sense since it isn't prima facie impossible and thus must be accepted as a solid fact, not to mention that it is perfectably reasonable and a sound argement. If we can see that the mind was matter, then it would be impossible to exist appart from matter itself. Things that are Metaphysically impossible are not even imaginable. Can you imagine a Square Hexigon? No, such a thing is perposterous. We can thus see that Metaphysical solipsism is consitstant with Metaphysically possible. Here we have to apply the Indentity of Indiscernibles.

F(FxFy) → x=y.

This is reflected by showing that these things are distinguished by some differential, but in the case of, let's say clones for the sake of arguing, is just a replication of it's own molecules. This is centered on the basis that all things have an individualistic characteristic and in the case of God it is the existance of it's own mind and it's consciencousness that shows this. I shall give an example bellow.

There are 3 Sphere, Sphere A, B, and C
Each have the same qualities.
Each of these Spheres exist in world 1.
Sphere A exists in World 2, but Sphere B and C cannot due to their likeness characteristics. [8]

We can see that this is a logically coherrant case and thus is sound. We can also see that due to the theory of Truely Large Numbers that there is a great chance that this world is that of a Solipsism one as many studies have shown. (but that's for another debate)

P2: Seperate Substances cannot interact
I will now debunk substance and property dualism for this to be true.

Substance Dualism
This is best cleverly sumed up by the phrase "Mind over Matter" where they argue that there's escentially two distinct things: Mind and Matter. [9] Though the key question here is if the mind is seperate from matter than how does the mind and the brain interact? We would have to see in order for the consciousness and matter to interact there would have to be some sort of interaction. (See image bellow) The trap here is that since there is a linkage here we can see that there cannot be two seperate things since they would have to be interlinked. Thus the theory here is false.

Property Dualism
So you may concede to the above dualism, but then you might say, alrighty, if that is true then the mind must be a property of the brain. Though if this was true then it would lead to epiphenomenalism and that there would be no free will since everything that we do would have been created by some reaction in the Physical aspect.

Though this is completely false as this leads to an interesting contradiction of itself. Say I weigh 180 lbs (not my actual weight, but it's an example), the property of me would be 180 lbs. Now tell me, have you ever gone outside or to the zoo and seen 180lbs? No something that weighs that, but the 180 lbs by itself? Thus we can blatently see that it is an abstract that exists only as a property. It can only exist as a property of something else.

If we remember my Solipsism argument from earlier we can see that the mind can exist by itself and thus it cannot be a property like the 180 lbs as the mind isn't a property thus it wouldn't be consevable much like the 180 lbs.

P3: Mind interacts with reality.

This almost seems like it's the most obvious here, so I'll try to not spend a whole great deal of time here. We can take many examples, but let's take pain for the greatest example here. I get hit in the head with a foul ball at a baseball game. Outside of the fact that I would probably have been KO'd we can see that the mind affects what I feel. I would feel a massive amount of pain and if it was great enough then I would lose consciousness and the mind would go dormant to protect itself and me as a person.

Thus the reality is mental and God has no choice but to exist.

Sources in Comments section.


I am just philosophical and state my views philosophically.
First point as my friend has stated the theological concepts which as in my point of view i do not care about it... existence of God.. that is what he has to prove rather he has provided that there is some reason exists behind the creation of human being and the whole matter.. The concept of heartbeat and pump blood is not just a reason behind it rather it is just only a matter and it is simply the reason behind the human existence and there is nothing any cause behind it. Man has been created it on its own way and by its explosion in the deepest core of the biosphere ... which would anyone call it Big Bang but we could not testify that here also god is behind it.. I would like to simply tell u the thing that people believe it is god's existence ... example - If a man is going to an interview to get a job in a multinational company then before entering to face the pool of questions he prays to god that "O god , please help me" and he later on gets on the job .. then he or anyone present over there will believe that he got the job because of kindness of god but he forgets that the same man has read and well prepared for interview so here in this part it is only his knowledge who has won him the job neither his God.. Side by Side if the same man has not will read anything and did not come prepared for exams and the interview and only is dependent on God then damn sure job will run away from him ... By stating examples here i want to say that God doesnt exist .. then the matter comes to universe creation then the greatest scientist of all time Stephen Hawking has said and stated that there is no creator necessary for the creation of the universe rather there is spontaneous creation is nothing but the existence of universe by itself . Therefore God doesnt exist ..
As my friend has stated the different reasons behind the existence of God but as a simply word writer i would explain it all in these only words .. I doesnt consider of providing different sources for proving my point as i am a practical man. . Thus as a practical i request my friend to showl live examples rather than going on for sources. and copy pasting it.
Debate Round No. 2


As stated in the rules, I'll continue my Opening arguments and then will address my opponent's arguments in the next round.

Contention 3: The Modal Ontological Argument

Dating as far back as the Saint Anslem, as this argument has been honnored by philosphers on every side of the spectrum. I shall be definding the version of this argument that was made popular by Alvin Plantinga. His model uses the S5 model and thus is immune to the popular arguments against that philospher Kant has made and hence making Kant's argument void. I shall also argue another point made famous by William Criag: The Argument is bellow.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. [1]

Here we can see that we can already see that on face value that it is possible that God exists. Due to this small plausability we can see that at any slight chance proves that there is a God in some reality and hence this reality. In order for Con to disprove God he must show that it is impossible in every possible circumstance. Now as we look at the premise 1 and 2 we can see that God can exist which leads me into my S5 argument.
S5: If possibly necessarily P, then necessarily P [2]

This would mean if a MGB is possible then it exists in at least one possible world. Under this model it would have to exist in all possible worlds qua maximally great especially since MG entails absolute exsistance. Since this world is part of a string of possible worlds then God has no choice, but to exist in this world.

Anslem's OA

A statement is a priori = one can see that it is true using pure reason and given an understanding of the meanings of the words in it. We don’t need empirical evidence to know that it’s true. A priori statements seem to be true necessarily.

A statement is a posteriori = our evidence for its truth is empirical, or based on data that we receive via sense experience.

1. God, by definition, is the greatest possible being.
2. A being that does not exist in the real world is less great than a being that exists necessarily, or in all possible worlds.
3. Suppose that God (the greatest possible being) does not exist in the real world.
4. If the greatest possible being does not exist in the real world, then He is not as great as the possible being who is just like him but who does exist in the real world.
5. But the greatest possible being can’t be less great than some other possible being. To say that “the being than which none greater is possible is a being than which a greater is possible” is to say something that’s necessarily false, because self-contradictory.
6. The supposition in 3 is false. God does exist in the real world. And he exists not contingently, but necessarily, or in all possible worlds. It is impossible for God not to exist. [3]

Here we can see that Point 6 is completely true. If we had this maximumly great being of some sort we could see that even if we took him out of our universe that there would still be a Maximumly Great Being. Thus we can simplify to see that when combined with the S5 argument of the Ontoligcal argument that God is Possible in All worlds and because of this we can see that it's a posteriori for God to Exist and arguing otherwise is futile.

1. Oppy, Graham (8 February 1996; substantive revision 15 July 2011). "Ontological Arguments". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
2. Marenbon, M., Medieval Philosophy: An Historical and Philosophical Introduction, Routledge, 2006, p. 128.
3. Anselm, St., Anselm's Basic Writings, translated by S.W. Deane, 2nd Ed. (La Salle, IL: Open Court Publishing Co., 1962


Its time still continuing the opening arguments and i am here to express myself in my opening arguments ... As i have said about in my previous debate that God does not exist and i have given a valid reason of Great scientist's Stephen Hawking ' s views that only science has offered the most logical explanation about the creation of universe and science is the main factor behind the creation . Now coming to the the next that If God created the universe then who created God? And if we ask to the priests in the temples and to Father in the Church they say that it is God only who knows that who created him ? and God has no explanatory views about that . So we say there are different religions and they existed from the very beginning of Earth ... No the Human Being has created this religion and the human beings are the solely responsible for the discrepancies created and the fight occurring between the different religious communities .. Great Revolutionary leader Of India Mahatma Gandhi once said "There is no God higher than truth " and his statement is always true if we can take any and different assumption in our daily and practical life . you say that God is the best explanation for the origin of universe and fine tuning of it ... But lest you forgot that Humans have minds and talents through which they learn different activities and use it to develop themselves and run the whole world economy .. I now rest my case and waiting for my partner's rebuttals ..
Debate Round No. 3


I'd like to thank my opponent for his speady arguments he has provided. For the sake of his writing style, I'll be going over his arguments by round.

Round 2

My opponenet has engaged in rebuttles in the first round as he addresses my Teleological argument. This is a violation of the rules I posted at the beginning of the debate stating that these were not to be permitted in R2 which shall result in the forfeiture of the conduct point. He drops this entire contention as he simply states that he doesn't care, so I'll extend this point across the board. The next point he brings up is the point of existance can be attributed to the heartbeat, and this has truth to it. If our bodies were not created with the biological functions needed to survive, then humans would die. This doesn't quite have anything to do with whether or not God exists. I do believe in the Big Bang and do believe that God has caused it, as seen in my KCA and my MOA arguments that I have provided. These arguments were dropped by my opponent showing that this would have to be the case in this debate.

The second argument that my opponent brings up in terms of mircales are atopical in this debate. It may be an individuals explination for belief in God, but is not reason to believe that God is more likely than not to exist. This argument should be thrown out of this debate. I myself am a fan of Stephen Hawkings as I own a few of his books, one of which is A brief history of time, which in it he states, ""As we shall see, the concept of time has no meaning before the beginning of the universe. This was first pointed out by St. Augustine. When asked: What did God do before he created the universe? Augustine didn't reply: He was preparing Hell for people who asked such questions. Instead, he said that time was a property of the universe that God created, and that time did not exist before the beginning of the universe.[1]" This actually furthers my own arguments in that since time did not exist previous to the Big Bang, this actually helps in my KCA argument.

Round 3

My opponent extends his arguments on Stephen Hawkings, but I have already addressed that this round. My opponent is once again refuting the wrong thing, I am not arguing that a specific religion is correct on the nature of God, but his own existance. In the my opening arguments, I have shown in my KCA argument that everything is a mind and God is the mind which all reality is grounded to. This was an argument that was dropped by my opponent. Please extend this argument across the board. My opponent had also dropped my MOA argument from my R3 arguments, please extend those across the board. My opponent partially agrees with my KCA argument by conceeding the greatness of the human mind. This was a key portion in arguing in this debate and it is something that my opponenet's concession does hold weight here.

1. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 8


This is a message to my partner and my friends who tell me i am wrong - I am not an extraordinary man neither a overpowered person who knows everything and has extraordinary skills so do not think me as boastful and weak man i am just a common man as other people and i have the right to propose my views infront of everyone with the way i think .
And as my partner said I violated the rules by rebutting itself in the first round and will be punished by the voters then for the kind information i intimate that my debating skills start with the intro with welcoming statements but before all this I first rebut my partner statements and then i come to debate...
Dating back to the views of my partner in Round 3 I do not find any right and truthful information she has types from her inner heart and just used the sources so i will not go for rebutting these useless things and waste my time . God , as she said in round 4 is the cause of Big bang the only rebut i will state here that the big bang as proved by science is proved my the collide of two rays of some chemical elements to form a small matter that is universe i conclude as i have completed all my views in previous part .. i am off ... i do not use any sources so
Debate Round No. 4


I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate and with this being the last round, I shall be addressing my opponent's last round.

I would like to clarify that in no way that I have had any ad homs against my opponent, only reporting that he had violated the debate rules by posting rebuttles in R2, which had been prohibbited in the rules of the debate. This is something my opponent confesses to in the last round.

My opponent has officially dropped my entire case in claiming that I was not 'truthful' or 'right,' these are not only insulting in stating that my opinion that I have backed with evidence throughout the debate for the existance of God, but the refusal to actually engage me in this debate based on not wanting to refute source backed arguments is equally as insulting as it is telling me that I wasted my time with this debate. Once again, I do agree that the Big Bang was initiated by that way, there is no disagreement there, but I have shown in my KCA and MOA arguments that it was through this, that God had led to creation. With my opponent having completely disregarding my entire arguments, my entire case stands and this should result in a vote for Pro in this debate.

I thank you and urge you to vote Pro!


The most prestigious and controversial debate ends here and i thank my opponent for being so kind to debate with me and be my partner ... I do not have intentions to hurt anyone or any religion but i prologue my views in a skeptical and critical way and make my debate strong .. Thus a question urges in my mind to ask the voters and the people who watch this debate "a shop owner does sell many goods daily but one day his shop falls down due to Earthquake , my question is Why would God break his Shop ? Why would make life harmful of an innocent man ? Should the man blame the God for this ?" Thus I end here by stating that GOD DOESN'T EXIST rather they are the outer energy we get to do the most impossible work in easy way .
Debate Round No. 5
64 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 3 years ago
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 points to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: In round four, Con admits to breaking the rules of this debate. With this in mind, I award conduct to Pro.

[*Reason for non-removal*] A rule violation is sufficient reason to award conduct.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
A <pre> tag snuck in there, It messed with the fonts until it was closed.
I gave up pretending to be able to get a handle on DDO's font problems.
Posted by lannan13 3 years ago
Not sure why there's such a stark difference in fronts in R2 C1.
Posted by lannan13 3 years ago
You accepted this debate and you are my debate opponent here.
Posted by swayamprakash 3 years ago
reply me if you want me as a debator
Posted by lannan13 3 years ago
Rusted beef?
Posted by swayamprakash 3 years ago
Rusted beef and lannan , if u dont want me to debate further i will not, rather you all have insulted me and my profession..../?
Posted by swayamprakash 3 years ago
what u say rusted? am i that bad writer or u cannot understand my words?
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
* god is what gives people false hope
* god hates gays and wants them stoned to death LV 20:13 proving god hates and is evil
* god hates anyone that does not believe in him and thus wants to kill them DT 13: 9-10 and 17: 2-5 proving god hates and is evil.
* god endorses slavery EX 21 especially 20-21 which is truly sick and disgusting proving god hates and is evil
* god wants you to die if you break the sabbath EX 31:14, NU 15: 32-36 proving god hates and is evil
* god wants to put you to death if you commit adultery LV 20:10 proving god hates and is evil
* god has freely admitted in his bible numerous times that he IS evil, thus proving that he IS evil
* god in his bible knowingly and truly hates children through numerous passages such as 2 Samuel 12:11-14, DT 2:34, NU 31: 17-18, LV 26: 21-22, 1 Samuel 15:3, Hosea 13:16, only to name a few proves god hates and is 100% pure evil.
* Indeed god is far far far worse than Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hong Xiuquan, all serial killers, all rapists, all tortures, all pedophiles, all sadomasochists etc etc etc combined. After all god knowingly created them which means that he is ultimately responsible for them. Its either that or god is not a god and lets them off the hook with nothing but a tap on the shoulder for their horrific, disgusting, repugnant crimes and simply god---does---not---care. Now here's some examples of god"s sickened, diseased, abominable atrocities for absolutely no reason at all... the great flood according to the bible (which never happened btw) so who knows what the body count was there? 3,000 EX 32:27-28, 14,700 NU 16:49, 24,002 NU 25: 1-11, 12,000 JOS 8: 1-25, 10,000 JG 1:4, 120,000 JG 8:7-10, 42,000 JG 12:3-6, 1,000 JD 15:14-15, 3,000 JD 16:27-30, 25,101 JD 16:27-30, 1 SAM 4 34,002, 1 SAM 6:19 50,070, 2 SAM 8 65,850, 1 KI 20: 28-29 100,000, 1 KI 20: 30 27,000, KI 19 35 -37 185,000, 2 CHR 13 17-18 500,000!!!, 2 CHR 28:6 120,000, Esther 9:5-18 75,813 etc Yeah god is really so moral? Nope.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by MagicAintReal 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD here
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: In round four, Con admits to breaking the rules of this debate. With this in mind, I award conduct to Pro.

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