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

The Christian God Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
An0nym0use has forfeited round #4.
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: 6/2/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 587 times Debate No: 114879
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




1st round is for acceptance only.
No new arguments are to brought up in the 4th round.

God is defined as the Christian God (omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent)
Omnipotent: Able to do anything
Omniscient: Knows everything
Omnibenevolent: Possessing infinite benevolence


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for accepting

This round, I will be presenting three points that effectively disprove God's existence.

1. The logical problem of evil:

(From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [1]):
1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.
This proposition shows that it is logically impossible for God to exist.

2. The evidential problem of evil [2]

This argument attempts to show that, even if the logical problem of evil did not disprove God's existence (however unlikely), it would be extremely unlikely that God exists, even if somehow it is possible. This is because due to the prodigious amount of evil in the world, it is highly unlikely it was created by a morally perfect and infinity benevolent God. Additionally, the evidential problem of evil can be posed to any potential defense, theodicy or refutation for the logical problem of evil to invalidate it.

3. Occam's (or Ockham's) Razor [3]

Occam's Razor states that of two competing theories, it is more likely that the simplest one is true. In other words, the theory that makes the least assumptions is most likely to be true. In this case, the two theories are:
1. God exists
2. God does not exist
The universe works perfectly without the existence of God, so assuming God exists is just making the universe more complicated. Occam's Razor states that the simplest theory is more likely to be true, so God not existing is more likely to be true than God existing.

In conclusion, my three points present sufficient evidence to prove that God does not exist. The logical problem of evil shows that it is logically impossible for God to exist and both the evidential problem of evil and Occam's Razor show that it is tremendously unlikely for God to exist. I will be presenting two additional arguments next round.

Thank you for reading.



First I will make my own arguments then refute my opponents. I would also like to add "Just" to God's qualities meaning he distributes justice.

the existence of the earth defies probability. Years ago, famed astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there are two necessary criterion for a planet to support life: the right kind of star and the planet must be the right distance from that star. That meant that there should have been an innumerable amount of life supporting planets in the observable universe. Therefore, scientists were optimistic when they launched the S.E.T.I program (search for extra terrestrial intelligence) equipped with a vast array of satellites in order to pick up anything that resembled an encoded signal. Over the years the silence from the universe was deafening. It was then that they realized that the early estimations were no longer tenable. Today, the number of stipulations for a planet to support life have risen to 200+ all of which must be met perfectly or else the whole thing falls apart. Mathematicians have come to the conclusion that the earth is a 1 in 700 quintillion oddity. At what point do we recognize that it requires far MORE faith to assume that it all "just happened" than to believe that an intelligent force ensured that all of these criteria were met? However, the fine tuning required for the earth to exist is nothing compared to the requirements for the Universe to exist at all. Scientists now know that the four fundamental forces: the gravitational force, the electromagnetic force, and the strong and weak nuclear forces needed to be determined within one millionth of a second after the creation of the universe ( be it by the Big Bang, God, whatever) and any slight modification of the values of the forces would have resulted in the Universes non-existence. for example, if the ratio between the electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear force were altered by the tiniest most inconceivable fraction stars could not form and the universe would not exist.

The fine-tuning of the laws of physics and chemistry to allow for advanced life is an example of extremely high levels of CSI in nature. The laws of the universe are complex because they are highly unlikely. Cosmologists have calculated the odds of a life-friendly universe appearing by chance are less than one part in 1010^123. That"s ten raised to a power of 10 with 123 zeros after it! The laws of the universe are specified in that they match the narrow band of parameters required for the existence of advanced life. As an atheist cosmologist Fred Hoyle observed, "a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology." The universe itself shows strong evidence of having been designed. Studies of the cell reveal vast quantities of biochemical information stored in our DNA in the sequence of nucleotides. No physical or chemical law dictates the order of the nucleotide bases in our DNA, and the sequences are highly improbable and complex. Moreover, the coding regions of DNA exhibit sequential arrangements of bases that are necessary to produce functional proteins. In other words, they are highly specified with respect to the independent requirements of protein function and protein synthesis. Thus, as nearly all molecular biologists now recognize, the coding regions of DNA possess a high "information content" where "information content" in a biological context means precisely "complexity and specificity." Even atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins concedes that "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Atheists like Dawkins believe that unguided natural processes did all the "designing" but intelligent design theorist Stephen C. Meyer notes, "in all cases where we know the causal origin of "high information content," experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role." The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. In this regard, ID uses the scientific method to claim that many features of life are designed"not just the information in DNA. After starting with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI), design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be tested and discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function. When experimental work uncovers irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

This method has been used to detect irreducible complexity in a variety of biochemical systems such as the bacterial flagellum. Moreover, the more we discover about the cell, the more we are learning that it functions like a miniature factory, replete with motors, powerhouses, garbage disposals, guarded gates, transportation corridors, and most importantly, CPUs. The central information processing machinery of the cell runs on a language-based code composed of irreducibly complex circuits and machines: The myriad enzymes used in the process that converts the genetic information in DNA into proteins are themselves created by the process that converts DNA into proteins. Many fundamental biochemical systems won"t function unless their basic machinery is intact, so how does such complexity evolve via a "blind" and "undirected" Darwinian process of numerous, successive, slight modifications? Since cellular language requires an author, and microbiological machines require an engineer, and genetically encoded programs require a programmer, increasing numbers of scientists feel the best explanation is intelligent design.

My opponent makes the argument that since God doesn't eliminate all evil with a snap of his fingers that he is not omnibenevolent and is therefore nonexistent. However, evil is a necessary byproduct of free will. It would be far more malevolent of God to impose all dominating will upon humanity. To strip the good of their self determination to prevent the actions of those with a greater inclination to evil. It's also important to note that God does have the desire to, and will, eliminate evil. However, he wants as many people as possible to choose to follow his law as possible and so he tolerates the existence of evil until the time comes to dismantle it forever. Therefore, the logical axiom present in my opponents arguments doesn't hold water.

The principal of Total Depravity explains the copious amount of evil in the world. Humans are naturally inclined to evil. Ever since the first time Man Violated the law of God of his own choosing the perfection God created became tarnished and corrupted.

Occam's Razor is actually one of my favorite arguments in favor of God. My opponent presents the distinction as being: Either God exists, or he doesn't. He ignores the nuance of the question. Take a look at the assumptions necessary to reject God. (Occam's razor does have more to do with the number and magnitude of assumptions rather than simplicity.) First, you must ignore the extreme improbability of the Universe. First, you must assume that without direction all of the fundamental forces had to become perfectly tuned. Second, You must assume closed system of time, Third, you must assume that all of the criteria for life to exist on Earth were perfectly met without direction, Fourth, you must assume that the irreducible complexity of biology came through unguided processes. Let me make one thing perfectly clear. I don't deny evolution. I think if evolution didn't exist it would shatter my faith in God. It would mean he created a static universe incapable of adaptation or change which would fly in the face of intelligent design. Religion assumes that an intelligent force ensured that each of these criteria were met which is a much smaller assumption than an unguided development.

I have more to say, but before I run out of characters I would like to bring up the following idea.

If we go back to the beginning of time we will eventually need to come to the first thing that ever existed. This first thing by virtue of being the first, must have had no cause. Yet, everything that exists has a cause. This would show evidence of the existence of a primordial force that has been called the Unmoved Mover. While this does not in itself prove intelligent design, it does provide evidence that a primordial force must exist. To deny this is to place the timeline in a state of infinite regression that makes no logical or mathematical sense in the way we understand an infinity. We now know that Space time is not a phantasmal idea, but rather a real property of the universe. This unmoved mover would likely exist separate from space time and in conjunction with previous arguments I find it to be most likely that this primordial force is God.
Debate Round No. 2



Fine-Tuning Argument:

I'm not going to even argue against "Fine-Tuning" because frankly, I have no idea what the opposition's examples of "Fine-Tuning" means. Regardless of if it is valid or not, it doesn't prove the topic. Sure, an intelligent creator could have designed the world but by would it be the Christian God? How do you know it is not a malicious God? Or a committee of god's? Or even if it was a god? The last question raises the question of metaphysics. How do you know we don't live in a simulation? These "fundamental forces" could just be variables in a computer simulations designed by beings intelligent enough to create artificial consciousness. "Fine-Tuning" does not conclusively prove God's existence. ( for more)

Free will defense:
Your argument has three major flaws:
1) You first assume that we have free will. If everything has a cause, all our decisions have a cause. If we have free will, where did they come from? Are they random or are they caused by something? If they are caused, they are not free.
2) If God is omnipotent, he would know the future. He would know what you are going to do and therefore, you are unable to choose between alternatives. You have to choose whatever God knew that you were going to choose. If you didn't, God would not be omniscient.
3) You assume that it would be more benevolent to give free will then to withhold it. Even if the first or second flaws were not true, would it really be better for so much evil to exist with free will. Wouldn't it be better for God to give us the illusion of free will but make evil non-existent and unachievable.
Finally, although not a flaw, wouldn't it be better for God to intervene or perform miracles to encourage people to choose good. Although free will would still happen (If you ignore the 1st and 2nd flaws), God could reduce the evil in the world by encouraging people to do good.

"evil is a necessary by product of free will"
God can do anything... He just makes evil NOT a necessary by product of free will. If he is unable, he is not omnipotent.

Unmoved Mover (argument from motion):
If God is the Unmoved Mover, why can't the universe be the Unmoved Mover? Or something else? Why does it have to be an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God?


Paradoxes: God's divine attributes raises a number of paradoxes that prove God's existence to be inconsistent.
1) If God is omnibenevolent, He cannot commit evil. If He can't commit evil, there is something he cannot do, even if he doesn't want to. Additionally, he would not know what it feels like to commit evil, therefore not being omniscient.
2) If God is omnipotent, he can create an unpredictable event. If God is omniscient, he can knows the future and knows that outcome of every event. This leads to the conclusion that God can make an unpredictable event but also predict the outcome of the event. A logical inconsistency.
3) If God is omnipotent, he can create something that its maker cannot move. If couldn't move the object he made, however, he would not be omnipotent.

Natural Problem of Evil:
A rebuttal and an argument, even if free will were possible, how does God explain the vast amount of natural evil which exists in the world. For example, multitudes of people across the world suffer because of cancer. God could prevent cancer without impeding free will. Cancer isn't the result of some decision someone with free will made. Although lifestyle choices may result in cancer, the existence of cancer was not created by a person with free will. It is a natural evil that God could prevent without allowing a greater or equal evil to exist. Natural evil exists so God does not.

Thank you for reading.


Like he says, he never answers the fine-tuning argument. He only raises the question about whether or not we're in a computer stimulation. Again, let's look at Occam's razor. As the number of assumptions the atheist needs to make continues to climb, we're now having to assume we live in the Matrix to deny god. Either there is an unmoved mover that made sure the forces were met, or we assume without evidence, that we live in a stimulation. Also, This argument was never intended to prove the Christian god. This was phase one which was to provide evidence for A god rather than a specific god. That comes in phase two.

I want to dedicate most of this round to free will. If I don't get to something else I haven't forgotten.

Advances in modern physics support the existence of free will on a small scale.
David Harrison from the University of Toronto explains in 2011 why modern physics is a preferable lens for viewing the discussion of free will, stating that

[Einstein, Rosen "Bell's Theorem,"
This document was written in February 1999 by David M. Harrison, Department of Physics, University of Toronto 03/17/06.]

"Classical physics provided a mirror that reflected only the objective structure of the human being who was the observer. There is no room in this scheme for his mental process which is thus regarded as separate or as a mere 'epiphenomenon' of the objective processes. ... [Through the] mirror [of quantum physics] the observer sees 'himself' both physically and mentally in the larger setting of the universe as a whole. ... More broadly one could say that through the human being, the universe is making a mirror to observe itself." --"

As a result, Tom Hartsfield writes in 2013 that Bell"s inequality, an advancement in the mathematics of modern physics,

[Quantum Mechanics, 4-3-2013, "Quantum Mechanics Supports Free Will," No Publication, Tom Hartsfield, 2013]
His famous theorem, Bell's inequality, is an incredibly profound statement. This relatively simple mathematical proof, when applied to experimental results, gives us a choice: We must either give up determinism or give up the existence of an objective reality explained by science and measurable by humans with instruments. (You can read the gory details about the experiments here.)So if experiments on quantum phenomena are reliable, then Bell concludes that determinism is false. Most physicists agree.Essentially, quantum mechanics tells us that there are things which we cannot know about the future, things which are not predetermined but happen with some factor of chance or randomness. Although many things in the world may be predicted, everything is not predetermined, and our actions do not unfold mechanically in a manner predetermined since the very moment of the Big Bang. Free will is preserved.

These experiments are reliable as Koch writes that on the quantum level,
"The deathblow to the Newtonian dream"or nightmare, in my opinion"was the celebrated quantum-mechanical uncertainty principle, formulated by Werner Heisenberg in 1927. In its most common interpretation, it avers that any particle, say, a photon of light or an electron, cannot have both a definite position and a definite momentum at the same time. If you know its speed accurately, its position is correspondingly ill defined, and vice versa. Heisenberg"s uncertainty principle is a radical departure from classical physics. It replaces dogmatic certainty with ambiguity. Consider an experiment that ends with a 90 percent chance of an electron being here and a 10 percent chance of it being over there. If the experiment were repeated 1,000 times, on about 900 trials, give or take a few, the electron would be here; otherwise, it would be over there. Yet this statistical outcome does not ordain where the electron will be on the next trial. Albert Einstein could never reconcile himself to this random aspect of nature. It is in this context that he famously pronounced, "Der Alte wuM6;rfelt nicht" (the Old Man, that is, God, does not play dice). The universe has an irreducible, random character. If it is a clockwork, its cogs, springs and levers are not Swiss-made; they do[es] not follow a predetermined path. Physical determinism has been replaced by the determinism of probabilities. Nothing is certain anymore." On a larger level, characterizing the motion of the atmosphere. The solution predicted by his computer program varied widely when he entered starting values that differed by only tiny amounts. This is the hallmark of chaos: infinitesimally small perturbations in the equations" starting points lead to radically different outcomes. In 1972 Lorenz coined the term "butterfly effect" to denote this extreme sensitivity to initial conditions: the beating of a butterfly"s wings creates barely perceptible ripples in the atmosphere that ultimately alter the path of a tornado elsewhere. Remarkably, such a butterfly effect was found in celestial mechanics, the epitome of the clockwork universe. Planets majestically ride gravity"s geodesics, propelled by the initial rotation of the cloud that formed the solar system. It came as a mighty surprise, therefore, when computer modeling in the 1990s demonstrated that Pluto has a chaotic orbit, with a divergence time of millions of years. Astronomers cannot be certain whether Pluto will be on this side of the sun (relative to Earth"s position) or the other side 10 million years from now! If this uncertainty holds for a planet with a comparatively simple internal makeup, moving in the vacuum of space under a sole force, gravitation, [it has implications regarding] what does it portend for the predictability of a person, a tiny insect or an itsy-bitsy nerve cell, all of which are swayed by countless factors?

All of this leads Dr. Michio Kaku noting in 2013 that,

Michio Kaku, 2013 "Why Physics Ends the Free Will Debate," Big Think,

"So what does that mean for free will? It means in some sense we do have some kind of free will. No one can determine your future events given your past history. There is always the wildcard. There is always the possibility of uncertainty in whatever we do. So when I look at myself in a mirror I say to myself what I'm looking at is not really me. It looks like me, but it"s not really me at all. It"s not me today now. It"s me a billionth of a second ago because it takes a billionth of a second for light to go from me to the mirror and back.

This is furthered by the work of,

Michio Kaku, 2013 "Why Physics Ends the Free Will Debate," Big Think,

"Here's the rub: the Nobel prize winning condensed matter physicist Philip Anderson, [who] wrote a famous article entitled "More is Different" in 1972 where he defended the view that the laws and principles he studied as a condensed matter physicist were emergent and there are plenty of phenomena exhibited by macroscopic systems whose existences cannot be predicted directly from an underlying, microscopic theory. In other words, the information obtained from the whole can"t be explained by the sum of information from each individual element. Simply put, just because matter in the universe- including all atomic constituents in the human body- obeys certain physical laws, it really doesn't follow that the choice itself must also be bound by the same laws. There is a huge gap here which is not explained by this line of reasoning. This is simply bad logic.

To summarize the basics of this argument, Stephen Cave writes for the Atlantic in June of 2016 that

Stephen Cave, 6-10-2016, "Free Will Exists and Is Measurable," Atlantic,

"On a different note, Alexander and some other commentators point out that quantum mechanics demonstrates that the world is not straightforwardly deterministic. In this, they are right: quantum indeterminacy implies that physical reality has an irreducibly probabilistic nature. Other readers have pointed out that even classical physics does not always allow us to accurately predict what will happen: According to chaos theory, any of an incalculably huge number of tiny differences in initial conditions can lead to radically different outcomes. (At least, that"s the excuse weather forecasters use for getting it wrong.) This too is a fair point."

All in all, current science suggests that because of the inherent unpredictability of small particles and the huge array of permutations surrounding any single event, science supports the notion of free will.

Also, God may know all possible futures but does not have a hand in forcing one of them. Thus free will can continue to exist even with His Omniscience. Furthermore, It is far more benevolent to allow us the freedom to do good or evil rather than turn humanity into a species of drones. I would rather deal with evil than be a drone.

While everything has a cause, when you add biological beings with sapience the equation changes. Suddenly there's a rogue variable. Something that can be its own cause reacting to other causes in a way that is determined by the sapient entity.

Skipping to arguments.

God being omnibenevolent is not a limitation it is a chosen behavior. God can commit evil. He chooses not to thus making him benevolent.

God may permit some natural evil because it challenges people to think about God for the first time. For many people, the first prayers or thoughts of God came as the result of some tragedy. When our present lives are in jeopardy or in question, we find ourselves thinking about the possibility of a future life.

I will address the rest of your arguments in my next post. I'm using the last of my ch-
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Tracer11 3 years ago
Well christianity takes it's roots from the Hebrew (jewish) religion so that means that it is also there god, (and i don't think there will ever be a real 'god')
Posted by Tracer11 3 years ago
Well christianity takes it's roots from the Hebrew (jewish) religion so that means that it is also there god, (and i don't think there will ever be a real 'god')
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
I'd take this on but I don't meet elo/etc requirements. Good luck!
Posted by canis 3 years ago
Religion will always exist..But there never was any real arguments ....
Posted by dsjpk5 3 years ago
I'll accept if I get to define the word "exists". Haha
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.