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

The God Debate

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,073 times Debate No: 90938
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (37)
Votes (1)




Rehashing this topic because my last debate ended in opponent forfeiture, looking for a opponent who will actually complete their rounds.

BOP will be shared. Pro will argue for while Con will argue against the existence of God

Definition of God:
a personal entity (i.e., a spirit) who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things. (the greatest conceivable Being)

*I will not be arguing for any specific God (I.e Yahweh, Allah, etc...) but God as defined above.

Round 1- Acceptance

Round 2- Opening Arguments (no rebuttals)

Round 3- Rebuttal Period

Round 4- 2nd Rebuttal Period

Round 5- Concluding Remarks



I accept to argue against the existence of a personal entity/spirit who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, AND the creator of all things.

I must point out that Pro has to defend ALL of those characteristics because of that AND in the definition.
I reject that resolution.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks to my opponent for joining me in this topic. as stated previously, the BOP in this argument will be shared between the both of us and I will be providing justification for my given definition of God in the arguments below. I look forward to an honest and thought provoking debate.

Before I begin, I want to clarify one important thing. I will be providing a cumulative case for God's existence. Most people claim: "there is no evidence for God!' without really understanding the double standard their placing on their beliefs. Evidence for God is much like evidence for 'quarks' or 'strings.. things that cannot be seen or proven directly but are widely accepted as existing because it's useful to explain observations that might be difficult to explain otherwise. Keep this in mind as we dig through one of the most controversial topics in human history.

*Quick Note: For this opening round only, I will be using material from my last debate that ended in my opponents forfeiture.

Kalam Cosmological Argument:
1). Whatever begins to exist has a cause

2). The universe began to exist
3). Therefore, the universe has a cause for its existence
4). This cause is God (as defined above)

The first premise is the most obviously true. It would be ridiculous for anybody to claim: "this bag of cocaine just appeared in my backpack" when being investigated by the police... Notice that this fundamental principle doesn't change with the universe, merely increasing the size of any 'thing' does not change its need for a cause. Now, according to the Big Bang model (that is most widely accepted by contemporary physicist), the universe exploded into existence from literally nothing. Of course, there are other highly speculative theory's that are all fraught with various issues.. but it goes to show that our best explanation for the origin of the universe is Ex Nihilo (out of nothing). This is simply against all logic and we are forced to admit that the 3rd premise is true.

Setting the stage with the first 3 premises, it follows that the 'cause' for the universe must be timeless (eternal), omnipotent (Since it created everything), omnipresent (since it created space), and causeless. Lets remember that this 'cause' must be a personal consciousness rather than an abstract number or idea because abstract quantities do not hold any causal relationship with anything. We are then left with a literal definition of 'God'. A very powerful argument indeed.

Argument from Design:
1). the universe appears fine tuned for sentient life
2). the fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design
3). Therefore it is due to design

I would like everyone to take a step back and look at these constants:

Speed of Light: c=299,792,458 m s-1

* Gravitational Constant: G=6.673 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2

* Planck's Constant: 1.05457148 x 10-34 m2 kg s-2

* Planck Mass-Energy: 1.2209 x 1022 MeV

* Mass of Electron, Proton, Neutron: 0.511; 938.3; 939.6 MeV

* Mass of Up, Down, Strange Quark: 2.4; 4.8; 104 MeV (Approx.)

* Ratio of Electron to Proton Mass: (1836.15)-1

* Gravitational Coupling Constant: 5.9 x 10-39

* Cosmological Constant: (2.3 x 10-3 eV)

* Hubble Constant: 71 km/s/Mpc (today)

* Higgs Vacuum Expectation Value: 246.2 GeV

When we look at these various quantities, we see that they have very specific values.. so specific in fact, that any change in their numbers down to a fingernails breadth would not permit life, chemistry, stars, or planets. In order to fully understand the magnitude of this, lets take the gravitational constant for example: G=6.673 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2.. If this number was changed by any one in 10^60th parts nobody would exist.. Do you understand how crazy narrow that is? Take for comparison the number of cells in your body (10^14) or the number of seconds that have ticked by since the beginning (10^20). Any single change in this constant would not allow any amount of matter to coalesce, and this is only 1 of the 50 or so constants! Take it from Stephan Hawking himself: "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life"

This leads us to 3 explanations of this phenomenon, Physical necessity, chance, or design. Lets deal with these individually:

Physical necessity -

This hypothesis is essentially the idea that the universe needed these values to be set the way they are. The issue lies in the simple fact there are no fundamental principles or laws of nature that demand these values be set to these specific properties, there is simply no rhyme or reason to think that these constants are a physical necessity.


Of course, somebody always chimes in "didn't we just get really lucky?".. Although being a highly intelligent response *wink wink.. it cannot be reasonably faced. The chance that all of these values would be set in these specific quantities can best be likened to an orchestra in which, any 'out of tune' value would result in the complete failure of the ensemble. Pulling the luck card in this situation is just not a viable option

It then follows, that the universe was set in these specific values by an intelligent designer.

Argument from Objective Morality:
1). If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist
2). Objective moral values exist

3). Therefore, God exists

In speaking of 'objective morality', I am speaking of moral values and ethics that are true regardless of others opinions. Just as 2+2=4 is 'objective' truth. Now according to the first premise, 'objective' moral values cannot exist in a naturalistic worldview, without a moral law giver, there is no moral law. Morality without God is nothing more then varied opinions, walking into a schoolyard and unloading the clip on any toddler in sight is not really wrong, its just not beneficial to society...

Now according to the second premise, moral values are objective. There are certain actions and behaviors that are not only socially regressive, they are moral abominations across all cultures, races, and orientations. Raping a little child is one such action, another would be cheating on another mans wife. There is a specific standard by which, all humanity judges eachother actions.. C.S Lewis puts it perfectly:

'The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something—some Real Morality—for them to be true about."

It then follows exactly, that God exist due to our sense of an objective moral standard by which, we judge the world.

Let me lay out the main takeaways that should remain fresh in your mind:

1). God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe
2). God is the best explanation for the fine tuning of the universe
3). God is the best explanation for objective moral values and duties

It will by opponents in the latter rounds to either completely reject the validity of these contentions or display a better explanation altogether. until then, I happily await my opponents opening arguments.





Thanks Pro for instigating this debate.
Pro had been searching for an opponent who would actually complete their rounds, so here I am.
Pro's rules have me sharing the BoP, even though I'm negating an affirmative assertion, "God exists," but I did agree to that.
Pro's rules also only allow opening arguments in this round, so, though it will be difficult not to rebuttal an affirmative claim, here we go.

*The Resolution Is Not True*

The god defined in this debate does not exist, because:
1. it did not create the universe, which is under the "all things" umbrella
2. it is not omnipotent
3. it is not perfectly good

For Pro to demonstrate this particular definition of god, Pro must show ALL of the characteristics from the definition of god because of that AND there within.

All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.

Our universe has matter and space.
Matter distorts space and creates gravity.

The way that particle physicists and cosmologists look at the total universe's energy is by the totality of observable matter (you, me, the planets and stars) and gravity (distortions of space).

Matter, in this energy combination, acts as positive energy (+), because matter is doing the distorting.
Gravity, in this energy combination, acts as negative energy (-), because it's a result of the distorting.

So, what if we could see how curved space is throughout the entire observable universe given this (+)matter and (-)gravity interplay?

Well we can, and we have, using the WMAP, which is an anisotropy probe attached to a space shuttle that measures variations in the otherwise uniform Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, and gives us a massively accurate picture of the scale, shape, and size of the observable universe.

We now know that our universe is flat, because the spacial curvature (the total effect of matter on space) of the universe is zero.

Therefore, all of the positive energy (+matter) is exactly being cancelled out by all of the negative energy (-gravity) in our universe, so that the total energy [+matter,-gravity] of the universe is in fact zero.

As a set, the universe's matter and gravity would look like [+matter, -gravity] = 0
So, we could imagine what the set might look like currently, given our massive universe of +matter and -gravity...

[+10000000000000,-10000000000000] = 0
This shows lots of +matter and lots of -gravity exactly cancelled out.

But when there was no universe, matter and gravity were at [+0,-0] = 0
At [+0,-0], there is no matter or gravity to speak of and of course the total energy is 0.
In this zero energy state, there is/are no radiation/particles/wavelengths/matter/energy/space/time/gravity...nothing [+0,-0]= 0.

So, for this debate, I will be referring to the otherwise inaccurate phrase, "before the universe," as [+0,-0], when there was no universe.


In our universe of space and matter, when you strip "something" of particles, radiation, and energy, you are left with nothing but empty space; this empty space is full of quantum fluctuations.

Quantum fluctuations are sub nuclear particles (not actually full particles, which is why some physicists call them "virtual" particles) existing and being annihilated by antiparticles, and the forces between these sub nuclear particles fluctuate along with this existence and annihilation.

I have to make this point perfectly clear.
These sub nuclear particles fluctuating in and out of existence are what nothing is, and this is always the case.
This is what nothing is.

The article above refers to quantum fluctuations as vacuum fluctuations because, in our universe of space and matter, we've detected these fluctuations by using a vacuum that strips the basics of something from empty space.

But the sub nuclear particles in QF are something, right?
They never statively exist; they exist and don't exist at the same instant, and it is this fluctuation that makes up nothing.
There is no "nothing" without these fluctuations, period.
What is nothing?
It is a state of fluctuating sub nuclear particles and their forces called quantum fluctuations.

That video is short and explanatory of QF = nothing.

Quantum fluctuations are as real as microorganisms, and we've demonstrated and measured their effect, in current space, in detail.

However, at [+0,-0], unlike our current universe, there was no space, and instead, like the forces between the sub nuclear particles, space and time fluctuated along with the sub nuclear particles.

Space is merely the position of matter or the distance between matter; matter dictates space.

At [+0,-0], in a quantum fluctuation, a sub-nuclear particle exists and is simultaneously annihilated by its antiparticle, and this pseudo moment allows for the fluctuated existence/nonexistence of space and time and the forces between the sub-nuclear particles; this was the condition at [+0,-0], which is a constant fluctuation of time/space/matter/energy/gravity thanks to QF.

These zero-energy quantum fluctuations, nothing, are such an unstable state that energy is guaranteed to be expressed from them; that expression is called the big bang and is the origin of our universe.

From nothing [+0,-0] to something [+1,-1] = The Big Bang.


In order to explain why the universe couldn't have been created, by god or otherwise, I must explain our current understanding of the Big Bang model.

With the right radio telescope, even you can see that the space between the stars above us isn't just black space, it's filled with microwave radiation.

All of this CMB radiation, which is a "black body" as it absorbs all intercepted electromagnetic radiation, is nearly a uniform glow between stars across the universe, and is a proven indicator of an expandable hot dense state such as the Big Bang being the cosmos' origin.

The small variations in the microwave's uniformity, show a very specific pattern, the same as that expected of a fairly uniformly distributed hot dense state that has expanded to the current size of the universe; this is called inflation.

These small variations have been measured in detail, and match what would be expected if small thermal variations, generated by quantum fluctuations of sub-nuclear particles, had expanded to the size of the observable universe we see today.


Unfortunately for this god, at [+0,-0], in quantum fluctuations, there was no stative time, because there was no stative space.
Space and time are part of a continuum, so we call it spacetime.

I reject the claim that the universe has a creator, god, because creation is a temporal process, contingent on stative time, and at [+0,-0] there was no stative time or the passage thereof, because there was no stative space; temporal processes like creation are nonsensical without stative time.

Therefore, a creator of the universe cannot be, because there is no creator of a universe that wasn't created.

Having unlimited power; able to do anything.

Omnipotence itself is impossible, because it's self refuting.

If something had unlimited power, then it would have the power to:
a. destroy itself
b. create problems it cannot solve
c. act unwillingly
d. create things more powerful than itself
e. inquire about things it can't do

If god is omnipotent, then god has all of the powers above, which all either render him destroyed, baffled, resisted, defeated, or without power, which is not something you'd ever expect of an omnipotent being.

If god doesn't have all of the powers above, then god is not omnipotent, because its power is limited to powers other than letters (a) through (e).

Infinitely benevolent.

Being that god has been defined as omnipotent AND the creator of all things, god cannot be perfectly good.

God not only created, but has the power to stop:

a. deadly viruses that violently kill innocent children
b. deadly bacteria that violently kill innocent children
c. deadly natural disasters that violently kill innocent children
d. deadly humans who violently kill/torture/rape innocent children
e. deadly animal predators that violently kill innocent children
f. evil in general

However, god, with all of his supposed unlimited power either can't stop, or chooses not to stop, letters (a) through (e) from happening.
This either negates his omnipotence, or it negates his being perfectly good, because letters (a) through (e) are common occurrences in our tumultuous world.

Also, you'd think that something perfectly good would have refrained from creating all of those *not good* things, but, when you're the creator of all things, you must have created all of those bad things too.
Debate Round No. 2


I must forfeit this round due to personal responsibilities. I made the mistake of participating in two debates at one time and am not able to fully complete a rebuttal of my opponents objections.


No worries, Pro.
The debate structure only allows concluding remarks in round 5, but I'm cool if Pro wants to rebuttal 5th round as well to make up for the lost round.
Whatever's clever in this endeavor.

*K to the C to the A*

Now, my favorite argument for god is in fact this one, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, because it was an attempt to take the infinite regress problem of "everything that exists has a cause" and change it so that god is exempt from the "if it exists, it must have a cause" rule; this is a form of special pleading.

Before the Kalam argument, was the original cosmological argument that asserted that "everything that exists has a cause." This turns into an infinite regress, because if god exists, according to the assertion, then god must have a cause, and god's cause must have a cause, and god's cause's causes's cause must have a cause etc...

So, the Kalam takes an infinitive verb phrase "to begin to exist," applies it to "everything that exists has a cause," and changes the assertion to "everything that BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause," which exempts god from being caused, because, thanks to special pleading, he's always existed and never BEGINS TO exist.

This argument is two-fold fallacious.
A. It uses circular reasoning, or it begs the question.
B. It special pleads god's exemption.

A. By saying that things "begin to exist," you automatically create a set of "things that exist, but don't begin to exist" and a set of "things that exist, and do begin to exist."

The problem is that the set of "things that exist, but don't begin to exist" ends up only having one thing in it, god, which makes separating "begin to exist things" and "not beginning to exist things" a way to smuggle in god's presumed exemption in the conclusion.

The assertion that a thing, god, didn't begin to exist in the premise is simply repeated by saying that god is the only member of the "didn't begin to exist" set in the conclusion, which is begging the question or circular reasoning.

B. By asserting that everything began to exist, except for god, you are special pleading god's exemption to the assumed rule that existence, as we know it, requires causation. Without an explanation or demonstration of how god should be considered exempt from the category, exempting him is special pleading, thus it is flawed logic and we can reject the conclusions from such a lack of reasoning.

Pro, other than bare assertions, like "god must be timeless/causeless," how is god exempt from the beginning to exist rule that you openly endorse?
Pro, could you explain the mechanism by which god accomplishes this exemption?
If you can't, then how do you know that this exemption has occurred?


I argue that the universe is obviously adequate for some life, as we are here, but not finely tuned for life.
Earth is currently the only observable planet to have life, and the Earth itself is not exactly finely tuned for life either given that "99.9% of all species that have ever lived on Earth are now extinct."

A 99.9% extinction rate does not point to something finely tuned for life.

To further illustrate the non sequitur from low odds--> purposive god
Let me make an analogy.

If all polygons had just .00000000000000001 degree more or less than 180 degrees, then triangles couldn't exist.
Mathematicians have figured out that with just this slight change in degree, triangles would not be possible.
The odds of any other polygon existing with inexact amounts of 180 degrees are far higher than triangles existing, making triangles' existence very improbable.
Because triangles require such a low probability, and they do exist, an intelligence allowed for triangles to be polygons.

The point is, that inferring an intelligence because the naturally occurring odds are low is a non sequitur.
So what if the odds are low?
Outliers are part of randomness.
Outliers do not equal a purposive intelligence, and Pro has not demonstrated such by saying "It then follows, that the universe was set in these specific values by an intelligent designer."
The odds for life occurring naturally aren't zero, so it's not impossible or even relevant to point out.


I argue that objective morality exists irrespective of god, because of objective immoral sufferings.
Actions that lead away from objectively immoral sufferings of humans/conscious animals are objectively moral.

According to the NIST, 111°F is the temperature at which human skin begins to feel pain.
At 140°F, human skin becomes numb from being burned so badly.
At 162°F, human skin is instantly destroyed.

Objectively, when human skin reaches 162°F and above, it causes severe suffering in ALL HUMANS; we objectively suffer without our skin. Actions that lead away from letting human skin reach this temperature are objectively moral, because the suffering is actually objective.

Objectively, broken bones from rocks being thrown at a human's face causes a human to suffer.
With "as little as 25 pounds of pressure applied to one of your small bones will cause a fracture."

Objectively, 25 psi from a blunt force will break human bone, and objectively this will cause suffering. Actions that lead us away from 25 or more psi by way of blunt force on a human's bone would be objectively moral.

So, there are objective stimuli that objectively cause suffering, irrespective of my opinion/experience, and there are actions that objectively lead to these objective stimuli on humans.

The actions that lead toward these objective sufferings are immoral.
The actions that lead away from these objective sufferings are moral.
Actions that lead away from these objective stimuli-->humans/conscious animals benefit society; they are moral.

We don't need a god to know that human skin burns at an objective temperature that causes objective suffering, and that there are actions that objectively lead away from/toward this result, moral and immoral respectively.


Pro concluded:
"God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe"

My response:
The big bang as an expression of unstable quantum fluctuations is much better than god and it has a mechanistic explanation, which I provided 2nd round.

Pro also concluded:
"God is the best explanation for the fine tuning of the universe."

My response:
Well, Pro had mentioned that the universe was finely tuned for life, but 99.9% of all species to ever live on the only known planet of life have gone extinct...wasn't finely tuned for that 99.9%, huh?

Pro concluded his conclusion:
"God is the best explanation for objective moral values and duties"

My response:
Objective suffering serves as that standard that Pro claims exists only with god.
By moving away from objective sufferings, we move toward objective morality, and there's no need for a god to exist in order to accomplish this.

Debate Round No. 3


Thanks to my opponent for allowing me the privledge of conceding my last round, Let me recommend to never participate in 2 debates during a working schedule.. It will not end well *wink wink..

I will be using my 5th round 'concluding remarks' as grounds for my last rebuttal as suggested by my opponent, on that note, lets begin:

No Stative time = No God?

Let me first address that my opponent gave a wonderful demonstration of our current understanding of quantum fluctuations and how that relates to our current models of Big Bang cosmology. The conclusion however is what baffles me, let me sum it up for this section in this assertion: “creation is a temporal process, contingent on stative time, and at [+0,-0] there was no stative time or the passage thereof, because there was no stative space; temporal processes like creation are nonsensical without stative time.”

Now I’m interested, what makes my opponent think that “stative time” presupposes causality? Why cannot one timeless entity (say a #) depend timelessly for its existence on another timeless entity? Why could not God sustain a number in a timeless existence? I’m interested to hear why it is impossible.

When we look at the entire sphere of causality, we see that there are two types: temporal and logical. Immanuel Kant gives a prime example of logical causality, imagine a heavy ball resting on a cushion from eternity past, the physical proximity of the ball and cushion will form a concave depression (indentation) in the cushion that is co-eternal with the ball and cushion... Now if I may ask... What is the cause of this concavity? The ball nor the cushion has temporal priority over the other.. In my opponents view, there cannot be a cause for this causality (since neither is temporarily prior), this just simply isn’t a valid conclusion however, as a contingent property, the concavity of the cushion begs for a causal explanation! We then have an example of a cause that does not precede its effect in time or rather, in a different manner: logically. If the ball did not exist, the concavity of the cushion would not exist. The ball is logically prior to the concavity, though not temporally prior to it.

This is a great example in displaying how the concept of causation is logically coherent outside the bound of a temporal framework. My opponent is falsely concluding that there is only one form of causation (temporally bound) which the atheist philosopher Alexander Pruss concludes is ‘unconvincing’ while remarking: “apart from full or partial reductions of the notion of causation to something like Humean regularity and temporal precedence, …there is [not] much reason to suppose that the cause of a temporal effect must even be in time.”

My opponent states further: “Therefore, a creator of the universe cannot be, because there is no creator of a universe that wasn't created.”

Let’s note that the given situation above is a great example of “simultaneous causation”

Law of Causality - “Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause”

Immanuel Kant further simplifies this idea in his book, The Critique of Pure Reason: All changes take place according to the law of the connection of Cause and Effect… The principle of the connection of causality among phenomena…applies also when the phenomena exist together in the same time, and that cause and effect may be simultaneous” (Kant, 1787, I., emp. added). A further examination of a wide variety of events in our experience will show the reality of simultaneous causation and the logical prevalence of a cause occurring simultaneously with its effect… This ultimately shows how my opponent rejecting the existence of a Creator because“creation is a temporal process, contingent on stative time” is false since the effect of the universe could occur simultaneously with its causal activity

Overall, my opponent will need to show how it is impossible for causation to occur (either logically or simultaneously) outside the bounds of temporal necessity which we have not seen so far.

Issues with Omnipotence:

Here my friends is where the debate begins to rely heavily on definitions... The definition my opponent provided for "omnipotent" IS inherently contradictory.. For how can an entity who is able to do 'all things' be limited according to this definition? I will display in this section however, that following the same principle laws of logic denounce this 'definition' entirely as purely ridiculous

Definition of nature: "The basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it"

Now, omnipotence is not independent of God's nature but rather, is an inherent quality whereby his attributes must operate within that nature. This follows logically since having a human nature, I cannot run faster than a cheetah, my human nature restricts it. So too with God as His omnipotence is characteristic of 'who' He is, therefore showing how God can only do things that are in harmony with His nature.

Here I will respond to my opponents alleged paradox's according to this principle:

(1) Now remember that the given definition states that God is noxiously eternal, perfectly free, etc.. Meaning that that He must exist due to a necessity of His own nature rather then being a contingent property.. Therefore God cannot 'destroy itself' because He must exist.

(2) God cannot create problems He cannot solve because that is a direct violation of his omniscience, for how can an all knowing being and not know something?

(3) God cannot act unwillingly because again, this lies as a contradiction to his omniscience, how can a being who knows all unwillingly act?

(4). God cannot 'create things more powerful then himself' because He is the Greatest Conceivable Being.. The famous creator of the ontological argument, Anselm, remarks: "if you could imagine a being greater then God then that would be God!".. Again, creating something 'more powerful then Himself' is another violation of His essential nature

(5), God cannot 'inquire about things it cannot do'.. Well I think you get the point, it is a violation His nature.

So when my atheist friends adopt a self-contradictory definition of omnipotence without logically tracing out its implications, what follows is the supposed 'omnipotence paradox's that are not adequate in their explanatory scope..

This is why the vast, vast amount of theologians have adopted a more logically sound definition of omnipotence...

"having unlimited power and authority of that which is not contradictory to His own nature"

Issues with Omni-benevolence:

Now in this section, my opponent is using the infamous “problem of evil” to show how an omnibenevolent and omnipotent conception of God is explicitly contradictory. The issue is that my atheist friend needs to do a-lot more to show that these attributes are logically inconsistent…

My opponent seems to making 2 assumptions:

(1). If God is omnipotent then he can create any world that he desires”

(2). If God is omnibenevolent then he prefers a world without evil over a world with evil

Now, the atheist needs to show that these assumptions are necessarily true in order for the argument to constitute evidence against the existence of God. And as the renown Alvin Plantinga argues, the possibility that humans have free will make both assumptions (1-2) not necessarily correct.

Now for assumption (1), if free will is a possibility then it is false that an omnipotent God can logically create any world that he desires (remember, omnipotent entities cannot perform illogical actions) as it is logically impossible to force somebody to freely choose something.. Lets note that this implies certain worlds that are 'possible' which God is incapable of creating, Philosophers say that such worlds are not feasible for God. so the first assumption made by my opponent is not necessarily true

Lets also note that in every feasible world - in which God creates free agents - some of these creatures can and will choose evil. Thus it is possible that every world feasibly within Gods grasp, which contains free creatures, is a reality with evil and sin therefore displaying the inadequacy of the (1) premise

As for the (2) assumption, 'God preferring without evil over a world with evil' is not necessarily true since God may have morally sufficient reasons for allowing the suffering in the world - for some overarching end. After all, we all understand that withholding pleasures and suffering for a time will produce a better result.. Why not so with the Greatest Conceivable Being? Consequently, the second assumption is again not valid.

Overall, my opponent will need to show that either of the assumptions are necessarily true, which is a MUST to sustain the claim that the omni-features of God are logically incoherent. Good luck trying to carry that burden my friend.

Here are the main takeaways from the first rebuttal period:
1). Causation is not bound by a temporal framework
2). Omnipotence does not prove an explicit contradiction when understood correctly
3). the 'problem of evil' does not pose a neccisary threat to a theistic worldview

I look forward to my opponents further rebuttals.

Back to Con



Thanks for that response Pro.
We all know how DDO isn't necessarily the only thing in our lives, and giving up a round, in the grand scheme of things is no biggy.
So, enjoy using the 5th round to rebuttal along with your conclusions.


Pro mentions:
"Let me first address that my opponent gave a wonderful demonstration of our current understanding of quantum fluctuations and how that relates to our current models of Big Bang cosmology.

My response:
Awesome, thanks.

Pro continues:
"The conclusion however is what baffles me...'creation is a temporal process, contingent on stative time...temporal processes like creation are nonsensical without stative time' I"m interested, what makes my opponent think that "stative time" presupposes causality?"

My response:
This is an example of Pro trying to morph what I said, but anyone reading this can see it.
Pro equivocates creation with causation, in fact, I invite anyone to use their web browser's word search tool, and search for the term "causation" or the term "causality" and see if I mentioned it AT ALL...seriously, go ahead.

You'll find that it was ONLY Pro who has used the term causation or causality, and I used the term "creation" because that's what was claimed about god in this debate, per round 1 when Pro clearly stated that god was "creator of all things."
Notice that Pro did not say "causer" of all things.

Here's why it matters:

1. creation - the PROCESS of bringing something into existence.

2. causation - the relationship between cause and effect.

Creation is a process, and processes require stative time, because a process is a series of actions or steps.

Pro, can you explain how you can tell the difference between a creator and its created product without time?
How can you explain creator-->creating-->created product without a series of actions?
Creators NECESSARILY precede their creations, and precedence requires stative time.

Therefore, CREATION, not CAUSATION or CAUSALITY, is a temporal process that requires stative time for a creator to pre-exist its creation and allow said pre-existence to create and bring about its created product.

Pro, how do you reconcile this?

Pro continues anyway:
"Why could not God sustain a number in a timeless existence? I"m interested to hear why it is impossible."

My response:
God is defined by Pro as the creator of all things.
Creation is a process that requires stative time.
If the universe wasn't created because stative time is a property of the universe itself, then god didn't create the universe and isn't the creator of all things.
That's why it's impossible.
How do you tell the difference between a creator and its created product without time?
This is the impossibility of your claim.

Pro still continues:
"When we look at the entire sphere of causality, we see that there are two types: temporal and logical."

My response:
How about when we look at the entire sphere of CREATION, Pro?
Are there two types of creation that somehow don't necessitate stative time?
This is particularly damning to Pro's argument of god is the creator of all things, because not only would god have to have created a universe that wasn't created, but god would have to use a temporal process, CREATION, to create time itself.

How could god have used time to create time?
That's baffling!

Pro makes a Kantian analogy:
"Imagine a heavy ball resting on a cushion from eternity past, the physical proximity of the ball and cushion will form a concave depression (indentation) in the cushion that is co-eternal with the ball and cushion... Now if I may ask... What is the cause of this concavity?"

My response:
I don't know.
What's the creation of the cushion/ball?
Did that creation require time?

Also, since Pro said that it was "a cushion from eternity past," this shows that the cushion preceded the ball...either way the analogy is irrelevant to creation, which is what Pro needs to address here, not causality.

Pro drags on:
"This is a great example in displaying how the concept of causation is logically coherent outside the bound of a temporal framework."

My response:
And what about the temporal process of creation, a series of actions?


Hey, I found out from reading Pro's arguments, that I'm omnipotent.
Isn't that special?

I had always assumed that omnipotent meant unlimited power, but it turns out, omnipotent means unlimited within your limited nature.

I offered the oxford dictionary's definition of omnipotent, which says that omnipotent means unlimited power, but because it damns Pro's argument of god, Pro seeks to change that to:
"having unlimited power and authority of that which is not contradictory to His own nature"

This means that I'm omnipotent, because I am unlimited to things within my nature as well.
I can't fly, but that would be contradictory to being a human, so I'm still omnipotent within my nature.
I may be limited to actions, but this limit is part of my nature, so I'm still omnipotent within my nature.

Pro even refutes himself:
"having a human nature, I cannot run faster than a cheetah, my human nature *restricts* too with God"

My response:
Pro admits that god is restricted to things within his nature, so this shows that there are things outside of god's nature that god is restricted from.
Does that sound like unlimited to you?
Pro admits god's limits.

I maintain that true omnipotence would be truly unlimited, such that god should be able to do ANYTHING, but in Pro's argument to prove the omnipotence of god, Pro lists:
"1. God cannot...
2. God cannot...
3. God cannot...
4. God cannot...
5. God cannot..."

My response:
I expected that if one were to prove that something is capable of ALL things, or has ALL powers, there'd be a lot less "cannot" and a lot more "can," but this effectively shows that there are SO MANY THINGS that "God cannot" do.
This doesn't reek of omnipotence, does it, Pro?

Whatever, by Pro's definition, you, I, plants, insects, and bacteria are all omnipotent, because we CAN'T do anything outside of our nature, just like god.

Pro adds:
"So when my atheist friends adopt a self-contradictory definition of omnipotence without logically tracing out its implications, what follows is the supposed 'omnipotence paradox's that are not adequate in their explanatory scope."

My response:
God cannot do all things, he's clearly limited, and pointing this out is damning to Pro's case, so Pro has redefined unlimited power to mean unlimited power within a limited nature; I feel so omnipotent today, and you should too.


Pro furthers his concession that god cannot do all things and is not the creator of all things...

Pro mentions:
"It is false that an omnipotent God can logically create any world...certain worlds that are 'possible' which God is incapable of creating."

My response:
So, god can't create any world, even it's possible?
Yet another limit to this ever-limited god that you're purporting.

Pro says it's an assumption to say "If God is omnibenevolent then he prefers a world without evil."
Yeah, evil would be contradictory to ALL good, as evil is the opposite of good, so it would follow that god should want a world without evil.
However, since Pro is changing unlimited to mean limited, and all good to mean some evil, none of this makes sense to Pro; it should be clear to readers what Pro is trying to do.

Pro is redefining words to fit his god where he doesn't belong, namely in the categories of ALL powerful and ALL good.
Pro also admits that god CANNOT create free will without evil, which again shows how god is limited in his power.

This next bit from Pro really disturbed me, and it makes god look pretty disgusting.

Pro posits:
"God may have morally sufficient reasons for allowing the suffering in the world."

My response:
Aside from god being UNABLE to suffice morality WITHOUT suffering, which should be something an omnipotent being can accomplish, "allowing" suffering negates omnibenevolence.

What moral reasons does an omnipotent being have to ALLOW suffering?
It's like if god were to say, "You know, I could stop suffering from happening, but i won't...without it i can't achieve my moral goals."
If god needs suffering to accomplish morality, then he's not able to do anything and he's not all good...he sucks for this reason.

Pro adds, disgustingly so:
"After all, we all understand that suffering for a time will produce a better result."

My response:
Tell that to babies born with malaria that god created.
Tell that to children who are raped repeatedly by the evil men that god allows to do such things.
How does suffering achieve a better result Pro?

If you truly believe this, forget about this debate, you are a disgusting being...I'm serious.
Suffering IS NOT A MEANS to justify morality, it's wrong, and if you don't understand that, then we should inject you with AIDS, rape you, and watch you suffer, and maybe we can achieve a better result...ugh Pro, that was really bad.


Pro has admitted over and over again that god cannot do things, even if they're possible, because god's nature is so very limited.
Why is a being who is unlimited have so many limits?
Because this being does not exist.

Pro has also admitted that god needs suffering to achieve morality.
Think about that.
Your powers are unlimited, but you can't achieve morality without babies suffering from diseases you've created and allowed to flourish.

Pro has conflated causation and creation, with the latter necessitating time that was not there sans universe.
There is no time based action without time.
No creation, no creator.

I hope Pro can redeem himself from saying that suffering makes for a better reult...that grossed me out and showed god's immorality...yuck.
Debate Round No. 4


iTruthSeeker forfeited this round.


I extend all arguments, including, but not limited to, the temporal impossibilities of using time to create time, the extremely limited nature of this alleged god that Pro has purported, and the immorality of said god who allows/enjoys/supports/justifies the suffering of innocent humans.
Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
Here's a better way to look at it.
Explain creation, a series of actions that bring about something, without time...try's not creation without time, period.
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
The words "occur" and "event" are both temporal concepts, so yes, of course a temporal concept cannot occur without time. Also, time and space are the same thing, and before these events you speak of, there was no space, therefore no time. If space and time originate at those "1st" events, then there are no temporal processes (occurrence, events, creation, causation). No space, no time.

It's like you're claiming there's ice before there's is a water concept.
Posted by famousdebater 2 years ago
You are assuming that in order for events to occur, time must already be there. However, time exists because the events occur. Time came with the first event(God's creation). There was no "before" the universe began, since there was no time(no events). An event happened with other events following, making what we call "time".
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
Well, think about the term creation.
It *necessitates* a creator and a created product.
Creators must necessarily precede their creations, or, what then is the difference between the creator and its created product?
How can you have precedence without time?
How can you call something "creation" without time, when creation is by definition a temporal process?

Your quote said "God creating the universe was what started time, being an event."
This is like saying "God using a temporal process to bring about the universe was what started temporality itself."
How can you use time to originate time?
It should seem nonsensical, no?
Posted by famousdebater 2 years ago
@Magic - Assuming the inflation cosmological model is correct, is it not possible for God to exist outside of time and then just create it. Couldn't God have created space, time, matter, etc? I was speaking to somebody about this and they said something like:

" At the beginning, all of these were created, Gods creation required no time, it was simultaneous with creation. God creating the universe was what started time, being an event. Time exists because of the occurrence of events, God creating the universe is an event(starting event) starting time. God could create space, time, and matter without previous time. "
Posted by famousdebater 2 years ago
@tej - yeah, I saw Raisor's thread about this a couple of months ago. It doesn't seem to work for me though (though on word it works, though not on google docs).
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
Actually, only "smart quotes" and em/en dash, i.e. stuff that the keyboard alone can't generate, turns into quotes. Disable smart quotes and em/en dash on Word or whatever, and you'll be cool.
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
So do ellipses and most of the number symbols (!@#$%^&) it's really annoying, and it's happened to me a million times, because I always forget, so no worries. Thanks again for the vote.
Posted by famousdebater 2 years ago
When copying stuff over from Google docs to DDO apostrophes become speech marks for some reason so apologies for that.
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
Thanks famous for the thorough RFD.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 2 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments.