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

is God real

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  
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: 12/29/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,354 times Debate No: 106234
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (27)
Votes (1)



God is real. The complexity of this world cannot be explained by anything else. This world points to intelligent design, not probability.


Burden of proof on Pro to demonstrate that God is real. I am curious as to which God pro is referring. Until I know which God pro is defending I cannot really provide an argument against their reality.

“The complexity of this world cannot be explained by anything else.”

It seems to me that Pro is saying that the world is too complex to have come about naturally. Therefore, God must have created it. As a syllogism this argument looks as follows:

P1. Complexity implies a designer
P2. The world is complex
C. The world has a designer

Pro has not really provided a defense of either premise, he simply asserts them. Thus the premises are bare assertions. What is meant by “complex?” Further the jump is made from designer to “God.” There has been no argument given that a designer would mean a God. The argument given by pro has a bigger problem than simply being a bare assertion and jumping from designer to “God.” The argument itself is, self-defeating. If everything complex s is the result of a designer, why would God an exception?

P1: Complexity implies a designer
P2: God is complex
C: God has a designer

I applied the same reasoning that pro does. Surely pro would not claim that the God they believe in was created by some other designer. (Perhaps he will) Even if you accepted pro’s “argument,” it does not make a case for a particular God, or in fact a singular God. The same argument could justify polytheism as theism. In addition, the arguments do not make the case of a sentient God. Thus the argument does not support the kind of personal God people profess to believe in or pray to.
Debate Round No. 1


Let me begin my stating that my opponents argument doesn't work. If you believe in the Big Bang Theory or evolution then according to your beliefs you would be contradicting yourself. You would be doing this by implying that complex life has no designer because you believe that there is no God. But in your argument you said that all complex life has a designer, this means you are ultimately saying complex life has no designer, but all complexity has a designer. This means you have to either accept that you are contradicting yourself, or throw that argument out the window. it comes down to this. We probably both agree that something can't come from nothing. It contradicts two laws of science but if you believe that something can come from nothing I will address that in my next argument. You have to either believe that God has always existed, or the universe has always existed. Here is why the universe always existing is not possible. The universe is running out of energy. If it had always existed then it would show no signs of running out of energy. Even if it had always existed, there is still a problem. Complexity of the world. Take a microscopic bacteria for example. It contains cytoplasm, DNA, nucleus, plasma membrane, ribsomes, chromatin, nuclear envelope, nuclear material, cell wall, capsule, nucleolus, and many other things, all which have very unique functions. I will take two of these and briefly describe each. Let me start with the DNA. The DNA contains all of the information about a living species. Science has shown that if you were to write out all of the information in a single sample, you would have a pile of books 500 times higher than from here to the moon. That's a lot of information. Take a look at the plasma membrane. Its job is to protect the cell, and regulate the substances which come in and out of the cell. It is composed of a phospholipid bilayer which is composed of hydrophobic and hydrophillic ends which are the main substances the plasma membrane is composed of. The plasma membrane also keeps all of the processes conducted within organelles separate. This way they don't interfere with each other. The plasma membrane has an important role within a cell.
Think about it, those are just two parts of an ordinary cell yet they are amazing. I could go on and on about all of the other parts I mentioned above. And that's just a cell. I could talk all day about other types of cells, animals, mushrooms, yeast, black holes, planets, the human brain, plants, sea creatures, humans, etc. Scientists have also concluded that we only know about 5% of all of the living creatures in the entire universe. Think about all of unknown that we have yet to explore. This all CAN'T BE A PROBABILITY. All of this creation can't just come from an explosion that is very unlikely to even be possible. How can this amazing world point to an explosion that somehow created this world and every single thing in it that have such amazing functions? How can an explosion design all of this. This world points to an intelligent designer. This world had to be designed by a God.
The question I get a lot is, "where did God come from," God was not created. He has always existed. We don't have evidence that he exists, but we didn't have evidence that the world was round until scientists proved it. But before then, was the earth flat? NO. Just because you can't prove something exists, you can't just declare the opposite. You have to look at what the universe points to, an intelligent designer, or an unprobable explosion that doesn't explain any of the amazing things we see in the world today.


A simple reminder that the topic of this debate is simply "is God real." The person making a claim has the burden to substantiate their claim if they expect to be believed. I dont have to prove that the universe is eternal, or demonstrate where it came from to win this debate. I simply have to show that there is no good reason to believe that God exists. This is remarkable easy at this point as pro explicitly states "We dont have evidence that he (God) exists." This essentially concedes the debate. Pro has no intention of providing evidence to support his claim and thus voting con is the reasonable choice.

Despite the above I would like to address the other statements made by Pro as well as articulate an arguement against the traditional concept of God. My opponnent seems to have entirely misunderstood my argument. He says that I argue that all complex life requires a designer. This is not what my argument shows. Rather, it shows that such an argument in favor of a God is self-defeating. Is God something? As Pro is trying to prove that God is real I would imagine that he thinks God is something. Where did God come from? must have been somewhere otherwise something came from nothing. Pro attempts to get around this by arguing that God has always existed. How convenient? He doesn't attempt to demonstrate this, rather he just claims it. Again a bare assertion.

There are many ways to debunk intelligent design. As many have done it before me and better than I ever could I will simply quote one of them here. Richard Carrier was said that "99.9999%.... of the universe is filled with a lethal radiation filled vacuum, life cant exist in it. So, that means the vast quantity of the universe is inhospitable to life.... In fact if you do the math and put the entire observable universe into a house. The amount of volume in that house that would be hospitable to life would be smaller than the size of a proton. If you observed such a house you would not presume that the house was intelligently designed for life." (1) That is what pro is arguing.

I will now offer a brief argument against the existence of a God.

"is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then, he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then, he is malevolent. Is God, both able and willing? Then, whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then, why call him God?" (Epicurus, the Greek philosopher)

I imagine most have been exposed at one time or another to the Problem of evil. The quote from Epicurus is perhaps its original form. Here I will demonstrate that Evil exists, and that because of this reality, God as defined in Christianity does not exist and is therefore not worthy of worship.

Evil exists

I imagine that all who observe the world we live in notice the reality of Evil. For example, there exists a multiplicity of instances of intense suffering. Often this happens to the innocent, or at the very least, the undeserving of the suffering to which they are subjected. Sam Harris put it this way. "Nine million children die every year before they reach the age of five. Picture an Asian tsunami of the sort we saw in 2004 that killed a quarter of a million people; one of those every ten days killing children only under five. That"s twenty four thousand a day, one thousand and hour, seventeen or so a minute" Any God who would allow children by the millions to suffer and die in this way and their parents to grieve in this way either can do nothing to help them, or does not care to. He is therefore either impotent or evil." (2)

Remember, this is not a comprehensive account of evil that exists. It is merely the tip of the iceberg. Imagine all of the other people that suffer evil through no fault of their own. Consider the sentient animals that can and often do suffer. While many may argue the semantics of evil or what evil consists of, it seems clear that the intense suffering of the innocent is evil. Thus, it seems to me clear; Evil indisputably exists.

The Logical problem

The following is taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

"P1) If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

P2) If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.

P3) If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.

P4) If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.

P5) Evil exists.

P6) 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.

C) Therefore, God doesn"t exist.(3)"


The God as defined in Christianity does not exist. This is clearly demonstrated through the problem of evil.

I have far exceeded my burden in this debate to argue that God is not real. Pro has not met his burden and has admited that there is no evidence to believe that God is real.

Vote Con.


Debate Round No. 2


Let me start out my argument by saying that my opponent has presented a prima facie argument. He is claiming that God is not real without providing any alternative theory that explains the worlds existence.. Without an alternative theory, he can't prove that God does not exist without proving something else is the reason the universe is here. Anyway, let me go over my opponents argument premise by premise and show it is invalid. First off, this is basically what my opponent is stating.
P1 If God exists, then he is all good and all powerful.

P2 If God is all good he would want to put a stop to evil.

P3 If God is all powerful he would be able to put a stop to evil.

P4 Evil exists.

P5 Therefore, God does not exist.

Let me start with premise 1: If God exists, then he is all good and all powerful. This is a true statement. God is all powerful and he can do anything. If he wanted to, he could destroy everything on this earth. He is also all good which means that he will always do what the right thing is for us.
Now on to premise 2: If God is all good then he would want to put a stop to evil. This premise is actually false. Surely you would say that that contradicts the belief that God is all good. God is still all good. God has a purpose for keeping evil around in this world. Lets say that there is no evil in this world. Would we really think that we need God? The answer is no. We would think that we are good by ourselves. We won't have faith in God without knowing we need him. God has evil in this world to test our faith to see if we will believe in him no matter what. God wants us to rely on him everyday for everything we need, not ourselves. If our lives were perfect, who would we have faith in, God, or ourselves? One day, evil will be destroyed once and for all when God returns and he will take everyone who is a Christian with him to Heaven. But that day is not today. God wants us now to rely on him for everything we need, in every situation. Without evil, we would not have to rely on him for anything.
Now on to premise 3: If God is all powerful than he would be able to put a stop to evil. This is true. God is able to do anything. He can put a stop to evil, and will someday. But because I proved that God can be good and allow evil, it does not mean that because there is evil, God is malevolent. God can do all things and putting a stop to evil is one of them.
Now to premise 4: Evil Exists. This is true There is evil in this world because we have sinned. There is evil in this world from cheating on a test, to torturing a group of Christians. These are things that will be destroyed one day, but that day is not today.
Now to premise 5: Therefore, God does not exist. If you can disprove a single premise in an argument, the conclusion is always false. God is all good and all powerful and will put a stop to evil one day. Just because there is evil, it does not disprove the fact that God is not good.
My opponent is saying that God is complex so he must have been created. God is not made like we are. God has always existed. He is a spirit, and is not made of the same material that we are. You either put your faith in the universe always existing, or God always existing. The universe can't have always existed because it is running out of usable energy, this means IT CAN'T BE ETERNAL. What is the only other possible option for how the universe was created? God. Because you do not believe that God exists then you believe that nothing created something, something somehow caused an explosion and created complex life that miraculously self sustained itself for so many years. It just doesn't work that way. It is either the universe always existing or God always existing. They are both miracles, but the universe has to have some explanation so which theory is more probable? You have to choose God. With that my opponent has not disproved Gods existence at all, while I have shown that everything in this world points to intelligent design, not probability and chance.


Burden of Proof: We are arguing the "reality" of God. This puts the burden on the person claiming the affirmative. Consider, how could it be demonstrated that dragons are not real? What evidence could be given. About the only evidence that could be given is a prove of impossibility. That is why I presented the problem of evil. It demonstrates the impossibility of the Christian God's existence. Pro did raise some objection to which I will respond. That stated, it should be clear to anyone reading this debate that the burden of proof is on my opponent to prove God is real.

Side note: I am baffled that my opponent is aware of what a "prima facie argument" is but has yet to respond directly to contentions that he is begging the question, making bare assertions, provided a self-defeating argument, and committing a special pleading fallacy.

Origin of the Universe: Pro claimed last round that if I can't provide an alternate theory to the origin of the universe than I cant refute his claims about God. This is not so, the argument about the universes origin is only relevant to this debate insomuch as my opponent can prove that the universes existence is contingent on a God. He has not done so. He has only presented a self-defeating argument. As in the last round, pro still seems to think I am claiming that complexity implies a creator. This is not what I have argued. That is what he has argued. I demonstrated that such an argument causes his case to be a text book example of begging the question. Consider, he is asking the question why is there something rather than nothing? He than claims to know the answer... "God." To this I am asking why is there God instead of nothing? To this pro has had no response. The response of "God" to the question of why there is something instead of nothing does not provide any kind of explanation. Due to modern cosmology I would argue that such a claim is not necessary. Though as I do not need to go that route I wont waist the time. Rather I have demonstrated that such a response is not sufficient.

If pro is going to claim that God can exist eternally but nothing else can, he must provide some argument as to why this is not a special pleading fallacy. He has not done so. He has merely claimed that the universe seems to be running out of energy and that this demonstrates that it is not eternal. It is unclear by his argument why constant energy would be necessary to be eternal. This is the second argument that actually contends against his argument for God. If all energy was "created" at the beginning of the universe, did God exist without energy? If so, why cant the universe?

Intelligent Design: Pro did not respond to my contentions here. I extend them. 99.9999% of the universe is uninhabitable. Most life that has managed to exist on this tiny planet in an average solar system in a minor galaxy in the universe has died out. Some designer... On a side note, if pro thinks it highly unlikely that the probability is to high. Consider our circumstance is about as rare as it gets in the vast universe. .00001% rare.

The Problem of Evil: My opponent only contends premise two as false and explicitly claims the others true. He claims that God can be all good and not desire to eliminate evil. good and evil are antonyms. This means that if pro is correct than his God still does not exist as it would be logically impossible similar to a married bachelor. He claims that without evil we could not have faith in or reliance on a God. I am not sure how this helps his case. Why would a perfect being create us simply to be reliant on him. The very idea reminds me of abusive relationships. Kind of like the husband who does not let his wife work or control the finances just to ensure that she will need him so much as to be unable to leave. Seems like this kind of God would be an abusive prick. Beside this point pro claims this God will destroy evil one day. This undercuts his argument. He is saying God doesn't want to destroy all evil... until he does. If evil is necessary now, why is it not necessary later?

You will notice that the evil of which I was talking is not even necessary for the purposes that pro claims evil to fulfill. Do the nine million children who die before the age of five every year really need that level of evil to learn to need or love God? What about all of the millions of animals that suffer unnecessarily? It seems to me that pro has not done near enough to discount the problem of evil.

Summary: My opponent has admitted in his arguments that "We don't have evidence that he (God) exists." His argument about the origin of the universe is self-defeating. I have raised issues with the intelligent design argument to which he has not responded. Finally, despite the inability to prove a negative I have gone beyond my burden and provided a prove of impossibility via the problem of evil.

Even if those voting do believe there is evidence or good arguments for the "reality" of a God, they have not been presented in this debate. Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 3


Let me begin by siting several sites that give archaeological evidence that God exists:

If you take the time to read over all of these websites, they each describe whether it is historical evidence that proves Jesus exists, archaeological evidence that shows Jesus exists, or historical documents and manuscripts that prove Jesus exists. The first thing you will probably say is that this is about God not Jesus. The thing is Jesus was sent by God. All of the miracles that Jesus did came from God. God is the reason that Jesus was on the earth.
I hope that clears up any proof issues for God but let me move on to my opponents other arguments. My opponent is saying that God faces an existential crisis. It is simple, the chief end of God is to bring glory to himself and enjoy himself forever. I don't have the full answer to this question, only God does. But this is the best answer I can give. Now to the point about the universe always existing. For the universe to have somehow always existed and all of the complex things in to have always existed there is so many probabilities you have to believe. The way every living thing comes together you have to believe in millions of miracles for the earth to have existed for an eternity back into time and to have sustained itself for that long and how it still exists today. If the universe had always existed, why is the energy now starting to run out if it had sustained itself for so long? Why are scientists discovering that the sun is going to explode eventually? Why will the earth eventually overheat itself? Why did these events not happen hundreds of years ago? It just doesn't make sense.
Now to intelligent design. My opponent said that 99.9999% of the universe is uninhabited. First off, there is no possible way that this can be proved unless we explored every inch of this universe which of course we haven't. Even if this were true, I don't know how it supports his side of the argument. All it proves is that the little bit we know about the universe cannot even compare to 99% we haven't explored. This argument can only prove just how much more complex this universe is than we thought.
Now to the problem of evil. The reason evil is going to be destroyed later is that it shows that good ultimately wins. He shows us how amazing he is by showing what he can do throughout our existence. God did not create us just to be self reliant on him. The chief end of man is to glorify and enjoy God forever. Being self reliant on God is another way to show us that he is the ultimate provider even in the hardest situations. The evil my opponent mentioned is just part of the fallen world that we live in. It is here for a good reason and that it to teach us that we need him and that he provides for us. In this case, evil can be used for a good thing.
In summary, God is real. Even though this debate is strictly on whether or not God is real, I am interested, if God is not the reason the world exists, then what is?


Pro lists a handful of websites that purportedly give evidence that God exists. My opponent will have to do more than just provide links. He must provide arguments with those links. In a debate with a strict character limit and time frame I cannot reasonably be expected to "take the time to read over all of these websites." Would my opponent be convinced if I linked several websites that "provide evidence" that God does not exist and that Jesus is not historical? Or would he expect me to articulate and qualify the arguments further? I would hope the latter. The idea of Jesus as a historical figure does not prove divinity in anyway. I am willing to concede that a man named Jesus lived, though this does little to help pro.

I did not say that God faces an existential crisis. My opponent did. He said "God has a purpose for keeping evil around in this world. Lets say that there is no evil in this world. Would we really think that we need God?.... God has evil in this world to test our faith to see if we will believe in him no matter what. God wants us to rely on him everyday for everything we need, not ourselves." Basically in response to the problem of evil, pro thinks that an omniscient omnipotent and morally perfect being would be justified in allowing evil insomuch as it causes people to suffer in order to need God. That is from top to bottom the most abusive relationship that I have ever heard of. Thank goodness it is not true. When I point this out pro claims "It is simple, the chief end of God is to bring glory to himself and enjoy himself forever. I don't have the full answer to this question, only God does. But this is the best answer I can give." It seems to me that this is another concession of sorts. My opponent does not have a good answer for the problem of evil.

After re-reading my portions of this debate I feel as though I have addressed my opponents concern about "probability" to the point of ad-nauseam. I will do so one last time. Pro thinks it unlikely we would be here without some kind of God. It seems to me that observing the universe demonstrates it is indeed unlikely for us to be here. 99.9999% of the universe is inhospitable to life. If there was some kind of perfect designer this would very likely not be the case. My opponent contests the percentage I give saying "there is no possible way that this can be proved." It is odd on its face to think that life would be common in the universe given that we have never observed any outside our little suburb in the cosmos. Regardless, this can be proved and has been thoroughly documented. This first link is to NASA and articulates different types of radiation and how we can measure its presence in space. (1) Aside from this reality, pros argument still hinges on the assumption that complexity implies a designer. This makes the argument self defeating as it would apply to God. My opponent commits a special pleading fallacy that God is not in need of this because he has always existed.

My opponent again states that the universe is running out of energy and thus could not have always existed. He ignored my contention on this and I will extend it. If all energy was "created" at the beginning of the universe, did God exist without energy? If so, why cant the universe?


My opponent continues to ignore my contentions. He has not addressed that his intelligent design argument is fallacious. He has not responded sufficiently to the problem of evil other than to present the idea that a morally perfect being is an abusive prick. He admitted early that there is no evidence that God is real. His words were "God was not created. He has always existed. We don't have evidence that he exists..." Clearly my opponent has not offered evidence in favor of his position.

Vote Con.

I apologize for spelling, grammer, typos etc... I have been typing this on a tablet.


Debate Round No. 4


Let me articulate the reason God allows evil in this world. The reason there is suffering in this world is because we are sinners. The truth is, we do not always think we need God. Even Christians believe a lot of the time that we don't need God. When we are in times of comfort, the tendency is for us to think that we don't need God, and we are good by ourselves. Evil exists in order to show us that we are not perfect. Evil is there to get our attention. Another reason that God allows evil in this world is because it will show how powerful God is when he pours out his wrath one day on all of the evil in this world.
Now let me provide evidence for why God is real. First off, in the sites I mentioned in my previous argument, they state that there has been archaeological evidence that shows that Jesus is real. For example, they found James's bones. James is Jesus's brother. Scientists have also found remains of the tomb where Jesus was buried. Other evidence that supports Jesus is real are manuscripts. If you can show that Jesus is real, then you can show God is real. The reason is because Jesus points all of the miracles he does to God. Jesus performs many miracles such as turning water to wine, healing dead people, healing deadly diseases within seconds, and being crucified and then resurrecting 3 days later. All of these miracles Jesus says come from God.
Other evidence that supports God is real is the Bible. The Bible makes 100's of prophesies way ahead of time that all come to pass. Here are a few examples. The Bible says that Babylon will rule over Judah for 70 years. This prophesy comes to pass in about 600 B.C. Another is that the Bible prophesied that Ninevah would be destroyed by fire. Not only was Ninevah destroyed, but it was destroyed by fire. Another is that the Bible says that Jesus will be crucified and resurrect 3 days later. Sure enough, the Romans crucified Jesus, and 3 days later, he rose from the grave. A Prophesy that the Bible say s will be fulfilled is that God will return and destroy all evil one day. The Bible has been right hundreds of times, why would this time be different. If the Bible has been shown time and time again to be historically accurate, how can you discredit it as proof for God.
My opponents contention is that the universe could have always existed. I am not saying that this is not POSSIBLE, but there is absolutely no evidence that supports this. His other contention was that 99.99% of the universe is uninhabited. Even if this were true, how does it support your argument?
In summary God is real. There is evidence that supports God, and all of the prophesies the Bible has made have come to pass.


I can imagine that reading this full debate is tedious. To any and all who do so I appreciate it. I provided an argument against the existence of God. The God by which I argued against is the Christian God that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. Pro agrees with this definition implicitly as I provided this definition in earlier rounds and he did not contest it.

I articulated the problem of evil. To this argument pro has made one contention. He argues that God allows evil is to demonstrate to us that we need God as well as demonstrate God’s power when he destroys evil. Neither of these arguments are convincing. My opponent is saying that God allows children by the millions to suffer and die painful deaths simply so that they or others learn to need God. I contend that a God that would do such is not morally perfect. The entire concept of creating beings in such away that they will be forever dependent on God is abusive in nature. Further, if evil serves this purpose it undermines pro’s second contention. If evil is now essential, would not God’s destruction of it be inconsistent. To count the problem of evil negated is to agree with pro that God is by nature abusive and conceited. In my estimation the problem of evil has not been negated in this debate and thus stands. We have strong reasons to reject belief in God based on arguments in this debate.

As my opponent has the positive claim about reality he holds the brunt of the burden of proof. Did he provide any solid arguments for the existence of God? It seems not. He argued that there is archeological evidence of Jesus. This is not properly linked to his claim and thus does not support his argument. Even if it could be shown that Jesus was indisputably historical and that all of his miracles happened this also does not prove God. Consider, Muhammad had eyewitnesses to his miracles. Same with Jim Jones. There are even eyewitnesses to Sri Sathya Sai Baba performing resurrections. Is pro as convinced of these accounts as the one’s he has provided? If not, why not? If eyewitness are all that is needed to verify a resurrection, then there have been many and the resurrection of Jesus is a dime a dozen. Furthermore, if resurrection is all it takes to prove one is God, it would seem Pro would have to believe there is more than one God. This creates a huge problem as the “Christian God” leaves no room for other God’s. Thus, either we have many God’s and the Christian God is a liar which supposedly he cannot be, or eyewitnesses to a resurrection do not a God make. Either way, the Christian God does not exist.

Next my opponent argued that the Bible proves God is real. Surely my opponent can see that this argument is circular. Further, he claims the bible to be proven historical. I am not sure why he thinks that. Several parts of the bible are historically antithetical. Consider the flood. There is absolutely no evidence that such a flood happened. There is also not strong evidence for the story of Moses. Pro did not provide a source or validation for the claim that the bible is historical. Indeed he did not even present the argument until his final round. This is poor form for a debate.

My opponent argued that God is the only plausible explanation for the universe. I have shown this argument to be fallacious on several levels. My opponent asks that even if the universe was 99.99% uninhabitable how does that support my argument. Well, it supports the negation of his argument that the universe is designed with us in mind. It supports negation of a perfect designer. It supports the idea that our existence is so rare as to be subject to probabilities that he can’t accept.

He admitted early that there is no evidence that God is real. His words were "God was not created. He has always existed. We don't have evidence that he exists..." Clearly my opponent has not offered evidence in favor of his position.

As he has not met his burden and I exceeded mine, it seems to me reasonable for voters to vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mosc 2 years ago
A Goy denies the holocaust or declares that Jews control governments and the banks - that's classic Alt Reich. An uneducated Goy who assumes that White people have high IQs - that's Alt Reich. A Psycho who fears for white survival and hates all religions other than Xtianity -- that's Alt Reich.

White supremacists have a victimhood psychosis - that's Alt Reich. Males who despise the equality of women - that's Alt Reich. White male dominated folks who hold prejudicial feelings and see the world as a conflict of races - that's Alt Reich.

This pathetic group of arrogant buffoons favor violence and view other "inferior races" as lower on the evolutionary scale. Supremacists hate groups - that's Alt Reich.
Posted by judaism 2 years ago
Is there a G-d? Well, you tell me. You're here, did you just come out of thin air?
Posted by kasmic 3 years ago
I said that the concept of a designer God that is perfect is unlikely. I do not use some kind of poor design arguement to disprove God. I use observation of poor design to negate the arguement from design. The problem of evil is the actual arguement I make. It does interact with the typical design arguement as most species that have lived on this earth are extinct. It would seem that if I accept the notion of a designer, I would have to attribute the design as a whole to that creator. I.e all of the evil and suffering. Therefore, a perfect God does not seem to exist and if there is a creator God, he is certainly caprisious.

I suspect you are a troll because you most of your comments on the site that I have seen are overly confident with little substance. This is not to say that you haven"t thought things through or don"t have reasonable arguement. Rather, that you seem either unable or unwilling to offer them.
Posted by judaism 3 years ago
We cannot expect to grasp the "why" of it all.
Posted by judaism 3 years ago
Kasmic, you fail to disappoint. I'm a what? A troll?

No, you're wrong in that assertion, I'm not a troll, I'm just a Jew, an Orthodox Jew who believes in everything he writes. I'm no different than you, Kasmic. Don't you believe in what you're saying?

By the way, I'm right about my last comment. It doesn't matter if G-d wasted most of the universe or not, all that matters is the prime creation, and that prime creation just happens to be earth, and the people in it.

You call G-d unlikely? Just look out your window, what do you see? That's G-d. You start your car up in the morning, that's G-d, because everything is made up of natural elements. No further proof is needed for G-d then you and me - human beings!

Everything ever created has a designer, a chair, a rocker ready to be launched, even a sandwich for school. Everything we create has a purpose to suit us, and the creation, a simple sandwich, cannot be expected to grasp why it was created nor who did what. This is the condition we're in. Every civilization has invented a Creator not because they were primitive, but because they knew it all didn't just happen out of some random explosion not even knowing it was exploding!

The point being, Kasmic, G-d is real. . . and no matter how you or I feel about it, doesn't matter. Because the prophet Isaiah wrote in 55:8-9,

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, says the L-RD. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts [higher] than your thoughts."
Posted by kasmic 3 years ago
The arguement is not that a God did not create the universe because it is inhospitable to life. The arguement is that a perfect God designer of the universe seems unlikely considering the make up of the universe.
Posted by kasmic 3 years ago
Judaism: that doesn"t refute anything. It just demonstrates that you believe in a wasteful and capricious God. One for which I still have not seen any evidence. I can"t decide if you are simply a troll, or if you actually believe the things you say.
Posted by judaism 3 years ago
Kasmic, furthermore, it is easy to answer your point. You said that G-d didn't create the universe because 99% of it is uninhabitable. . . but think of it this way. . . why would G-d need to do such? He'd only have to make that 1% perfect for us. That;s all that counts, since that's where the earth is stationed.

See how easy it is to refute atheists everyone.
Posted by judaism 3 years ago
Here's a wiki link:

Enjoy! And if you want more info regarding the big bang, let me know, I have a paper on it on my blog.
Posted by kasmic 3 years ago
Can you link us to a wiki page for this guy you keep mentioning cause I can"t find a R. Nahman from the 13th century on the internet.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote 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: In round two, Pro says there's no evidence for God's existence. This, in my opinion, is tantamount to a concession. As Con points out, Pro has the burden of proof, as Pro is making the positive claim, and it would be unfair to ask Con to prove God is not real (see Con's dragon scenario). Despite not having any burden, Con does make a negative case that is reasonable (problem of evil), and I found Pro's rebuttals to be unsatisfactory. Pro says evil exists so we can rely on God, but as Con points out, this would make God selfish and evil (which violates Pro's definition of God). In summary, Pro basically conceded, Con made a reasonable negative case, and Pro couldn't really rebut it. Arguments to Con.

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