The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 853 times Debate No: 108196
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)



For the first round please just accept the debate, arguments will begin next round.


Challenge accepted!
Debate Round No. 1


Atheist say that no one can prove God exists, and they're right. But i say no one can disprove God's existence. But in order to have this debate we need to look at the available evidence and that's what we're going to do.
Most Cosmologists agree that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an event known as the Big Bang. Withing 3 minutes 98% of all matter to ever exist had been created. Now the thing is they believe this explosion came from nothing, but in our lives we never see something come from nothing. But atheists want to make a small exception to this rule, that is the universe and everything in it. But how can we look at life forms, see how detailed and complex they are and call it a probability. This leads to my first argument for God, the design argument.
p1 Everything that exists must have been created by something greater than itself, in other words, no effect can be greater than it's cause
p2 The universe exists
p3 The universe must have been created by something greater than itself
p4 The only thing that matches the complexity of the universe is God, not probability
p5 God created the universe
C Therefore, God exists
Now to my second argument.
p1 Everything that is in motion must have been set in motion, according to Isaac Newton's first law of motion
p2 The universe is in motion
p3 The universe must have been set in motion by an outside force
p4 Nothing can't set it in motion, so because the universe had a beginning, God must have set it in motion
p5 God set the universe in motion
C Therefore God exists.
If God does not exist, than what set the universe in motion?


The first premise of Pro"s first argument, that "everything that exists must have been created by something greater than itself," contradicts the conclusion, that "God exists." According to the premise, if God exists, then God must have been created by something greater than God, which is a contradiction since God is defined as an uncreated creator. The very position of defending the existence of God therefore requires that one rejects the premise, and accepts the possibility of an uncaused cause.

As for the second argument, we must accept that the concept of God supplies a sufficient explanation for the existence of moving bodies. However, since God is defined as beyond human comprehension, nothing is added to the concept of movement by the idea of God. If God set the universe in motion, then this was also a movement. If the theist stipulates that God"s movements are not really movements, then we have just arbitrarily stopped the requirement of explanation at an unexplained and undefined point.

These arguments seem to assume their conclusion, by setting requirements of every other object in the universe while implicitly stipulating, for some unknown reason, that we need not apply these requirements to this term "God." In my opinion, this turns the idea of God into an unfair buck-stopping excuse for exiting the chain of rational explanations. Since the idea of God is by definition beyond human comprehension, all invocations of this sort are necessarily circular, and provide no additional information or explanatory power. As far as I can tell, in practice this amounts to a kind of excuse for selective abandonment of the norms of rational inquiry.
Debate Round No. 2


Before I get into my argument let me point out that my opponent has presented a prima facie case. In these types of cases it doesn't matter how good your refutation is, if you can't present an alternative theory to the origin of life, your argument hasn't dis-proven God at all. You see, we are both burdened with answering the same question of how things started. You have to be able to at least state an alternative theory, otherwise the only option voters have to go off of is God. It would be like me saying this. I believe that war is not the way to handle problems with other nations. Okay, than how should we handle it? If I don't provide a solution, then my entire case would go to flames because there is no other option to go off of other than war. That being said let me begin my argument.
My opponent is basically asking me who set God in motion. But theists define God as all powerful so because of this he can do anything. God does not have to be set in motion. And even with a God out of the equation I can turn this question back around on him and ask what set the universe in motion. It has to have been set in motion by something, otherwise it would not be moving. This is not the case so I ask my opponent, what set the universe in motion.
For my second argument when I say that no effect can be greater than it's cause, I don't apply this to God. I believe that God is not an effect, I believe he is the ultimate cause of all things.
My opponent has to respond to his own refutations. He has to answer to the question of what created the universe, and what set it in motion.


Jack states, "if you can't present an alternative theory to the origin of life, your argument hasn't dis-proven God at all." This seems to me to be clearly false. One does not need to be able to present an alternative in order to prove that a given theory is inadequate. After all, the assertion that God exists is not just a positive assertion, but an extraordinary claim, and therefore the burden of proof falls upon the person claiming this. The null hypothesis should surely be that the origins of the universe are unknown.

If, as I have argued, the arguments regarding God add no explanatory value, then it is not even the best alternative explanation. In fact, since the name "God" refers to something which is defined as beyond human comprehension, it constitutes no explanation whatsoever. At least admitting that we don"t yet have an explanation clears the path for an honest inquiry into the problem.

Next, is the same circular argument. Jack again states that it is nonsensical to ascribe movement to the universe, unless there is sufficient cause for said movement. Then, he ascribes movement to God and states that God is allowed movement without a cause. This is an internally contradictory argument, since it requires that we accept both that everything requires a cause, and also that an uncaused cause is possible. Similarly, my opponent also relies upon a distinction between "the universe" and "God," while upholding the conclusion that "God exists," which makes no sense since the universe is defined as everything that exists.

The basic structure of my opponent"s argument is as follows: First, arbitrary rules are asserted of "everything in the universe" which cannot be proved or argued for in any way; for example, everything requires a cause, everything needs a sufficient explanation, everything must have been set in motion, and so on. Then, the term "God" is used as an unexplained exception to these unproved rules. "God" is distinguished from all else only by the fact that this term"s resistance to rational explanation is taken to be an irreducible feature. This is not a "best alternative explanation," rather it is the reified lack of explanation.

Still, while I don"t think the case for God has been established, I appreciate Jack"s challenge and have enjoyed the debate :).
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by sdavio 3 years ago
Guys in the comments claiming to have evidence for God, feel free to reveal what that is...
Posted by dnate 3 years ago
Almost all logical reasoning based on evidence. I have all the evidence in the world that suggests that there is a god and those who oppose the idea of God have no evidence at all. Therefore, isn't their argument illogical?
Posted by asta 3 years ago
If god doesn't exist, then why does ice float on water despite ice being solid and water not being solid?

God created the universe so solids sinked below their liquid counterparts (ex: Solid Sugar sinking below liquid sugar, solid mercury sinking below liquid Mercury, etc). Why does this apply to virtually everything in our world except for water? And if it did apply to water, then there would be virtually no ocean life. Lack of ocean currents would decrease land life as well. Why would this exist? Could it have been by supernatural design?
Posted by canis 3 years ago
No. Some people create gods when they do NOT KNOW. Gods die when we KNOW...
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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