Instigator / Pro

THBT: Gods existence is metaphysically necessary


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

Wikipedia advises:
"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard."

Pro: God necessarily has to exist
Con: God does not necessarily have to exist

god will be defined as an intelligent conscious creator.

1. No intentional/unnecessary forfeits
2. Be decent

Round 1
THBT: Gods existence is metaphysically necessary
Position: Pro

Thx, Sum1hugme


  • Preface

Preface/ burden of proof analysis
all forms of mainstream epistemology possess uncertainties, and through these uncertainties subsequent conditions must be met for something to be true. To use an example "the sun does exist, but it only exists if we assume materialism". Admittedly this is a really big thorn in the side of philosophy. Since one's own self is arguably the only thing that can be known to exist for certainty, we must then have to prove things to exist through the self, and not outside of the self to know something for unconditional certainty. As a consequence of everything outside of the self being uncertain knowledge, i will argue that everything is in fact the self, only through this method can we  in theory come to have certain knowledge of god. Subsequently, I will be arguing for a pantheist conception of god within this debate. 
i also have the condition of proving atheism as infinitely unlikely, as only through it being infinitely unlikely is it infinitely not going to happen, as a consequence of such, if i am to argue that a godless universe is infinitely unlikely, and i am only capable of  finding god for certain and infinitely likely only through the self (therefore god necessarily existing), the self then must also be infinite in its being, and part of the body of god itself, otherwise god too could not infinitely be likely to exist. As such, I too must be infinite. Evidently, this is the heaviest burden of proof I've had thus far on this site, but also the most exciting! If I'm capable of proving the self to be infinite,  I will also be capable of proving god to be infinitely likely to exist. My arguments will not be hard to follow or comprehend, all beings capable of formulating a self will necessarily be capable of coming to the same conclusions I will show here. Due to a few of my previous god debate arguments being perfectly applicable into this debate, i will simply save myself effort to write the same thing by simply putting them into this debate.

A1. Distinction between things and properties of things

Following Occam's razor, it's easier to imagine one of something as opposed to two of something. Assuming I have two apples, If I asked an atheist how many apples I have in my hands, he would tell me I have two distinct entities. Atheism is predicated on this separation of things. A pantheist would tell me that there are two apples, but the separation between these two entities is an illusion; the apples are in reality properties of one thing (god) and not things (entities) of themselves.
A pantheist doesn't deny that there are two separate apples. The pantheist, on the other hand, denies that the apples are things in their own right (their own entity), as opposed to properties within another entity. The atheist has entities, i.e., the apples themselves are entities and not properties, and then the apple has the properties of being an apple. The pantheist only has one thing, which is God, while the apples are properties or parts of God.
As a result, the atheist possesses infinite things with infinite properties (if all atoms, etc. in the universe are counted). The pantheist possesses one thing (God) and then all the things that are part of the universe are properties of God, but not things apart from God. As such, pantheism possesses only one thing with infinite properties within that one thing.

1. Atheism possesses infinite things with infinite properties
2. Pantheism possesses one thing with infinite properties. 

Following this logic, atheism has not been proven just less likely than pantheism, but has been proven to be logically absurd and infinitely unrealistic, as proven through basic maths.
The atheist cannot also agree with me and say that all is one, because saying all is one implies that they are omnipresent, presiding over all parts of the universe at once, and are thus God the creator. It can't be any other way, because being the universe implies that you created yourself during the big bang (as you are it). 

A2. Argument through solipsistic duality

1. The mind and body are two separate substances, and have no shared properties

2. two substances need one shared property to interact

3. the mind and body cannot interact

If we assume nothing exists, all we can be assured of is our own minds' existence. If it is true that other minds do not exist, then we're in reality experiencing our own minds through "other beings". Within a solipsistic framework, everything is one's own consciousness. As such, you are God the creator within a solipsistic worldview. You create the universe through your own consciousness. If it is true, other minds do exist. Following the mind-body problem, how do we possibly interact with them?
Assuming nothing, Following premise two, that two separate substances cannot interact unless through a shared property, for two separate consciousness's to interact, they must in reality be the same consciousness, otherwise they could not interact. Consciousness is simply empty awareness and possesses no properties of its own, except through a medium. As such, consciousness itself must be the fundamental shared substance among all entities.

Therefore, even brought down to the fundamental axioms, pantheism defeats atheism on both sides. Even if other minds exist, and even if they do not. If physicalism is true, then we simply regress back to argument one. Pantheism still possesses less unnecessary multiplication of things. As such, both in an idealist, physicalist, and solipsist worldview, pantheism remains more likely in every single one.

A3. Atheism and the problem of identity and the infinite regress of minds

(1) something exist within itself (2) something exists within something else
Where does the mind come from for the atheist? If consciousness is not passed on from parent to child like other traits, it must necessarily come from nothing. If consciousness is passed down from parent to child, where does the parent get consciousness from? This problem regresses until consciousness either comes from nothing or comes from something. This something must necessarily be infinite and have always existed otherwise the infinite regress continues into absurdity. As previously stated, that which is necessary has to be infinite otherwise it is not necessary, if something lacks infinity it cannot be necessary as a likelihood of a lack of existence becomes present. Therefore, consciousness must be infinite. 

Theself must be properly and rigorously defined before any discussion ofthe outside world can be discussed. The reason for this is simple; Selfknowledge is always an aspect of any other kind of knowledge. any type of knowledge that can become known necessarily has toinclude knowledge of oneself as the experiencer of that thing at thesame time. You cannot have awareness of a tree as a thing if you donot have any awareness of yourself as a thing. This is why a tree isincapable of knowing itself, and asextension of this incapable of knowing me to be a thing withinexistence. Ifwe do not even know what we are with absolute certainty or whatconstitutes our own being, If we cannot properly define ourselveswithout it being subjective, How can we then becertain of any truth whatsoever? Understanding what we are then is the key andbedrock to finding ultimate truth. Understanding our objective identity.

Iwant you to imagine a person, imagine we put this person in ateleporter which eviscerates someone at the atomic level andrecreates them on the other side of the teleporter, is this the sameperson? Or is it simply a copy? There is generally two theories ofidentity, which follow on from this thoughts experiment. First thereis the theory of spatial tracking identity which dictates that if youdraw a line behind someone or something as it moves, as long as theline isn't broken and continues to follow the person, or thing. It isthe same thing. That is their identity. Then there is the theory ofform tracking identity. This hypothesis believes something can besaid to be the same thing if it retains the same structure. Thereforesince the teleporter recreates the person on the other side perfectlyto the atomic level. They must necessarily be the same person. Thetheory of spatial tracking would conclude, that the person whostepped into the teleporter is not the same person as the one whocame out of it. When the person got eviscerated at the atomic leveland transported on the other side, they lost the continuity of theunbroken line, the line becomes broken. As the person momentarilyceases to exist, and comes out on the other side of the teleporter.
Atheists are wholly incapable of finding an absolute answer to this question without someone being capable of simply disagreeing. Not only is this a problem for all atheists which needs to be solved, since it is easier to imagine one mind existing, the atheist then is also incapable of saying other minds are likely to exist. In fact, there is mathematically no reason at all to believe any other beings are conscious. Since there are over 7 billion minds on the planet, what are the odds that every single one of them is conscious? through occams razor, its unlikely any should be.  It's unnecessary to think they are. This is not a mathematical problem for I, as through the self being infinite, I exist beyond my body and into other bodies. Since no realistic separation can be made between myself and other minds, my own mind is never multiplied beyond one. Therefore, I can say other minds exist without them adding any new beings or properties into existence, unlike atheists. Atheists are thus completely incapable of discovering any conditionless truths.

A4. The necessity for the self to be infinite

Although previous exemplified within my A1  Atheism possesses an infinite regression problem. If Con wishes to deny the self being the infinite, if he says the self is not infinite and therefore was not infinitely likely or necessary to exist, he necessarily falls down a slippery slope of an infinite regress: if the self is not infinite, con then has to say we came about through chance, yet then if i ask con where chance came from he has two options:

1. chance came from nothing
2. chance came from something

In the case of one
If con wishes to say something comes from nothing, Con then once more concedes that God is metaphysically inevitable given a long enough period of time, and once an infinite god comes into existence, the problem of infinite regress becomes solved, then nothing will come from nothing any longer, but from the infinite god. 

In the case of two
If chance comes from something, he regresses the issue, and i must ask what is that something, this problem goes on forever. This problem only stops once we find something necessary to exist, for something to be necessary to exist it must be infinitely likely to exist, for existence to be infinitely likely to exist it ought to be infinite otherwise it is not infinitely likely to exist. Therefore, since consciousness is the only way we can know existence, it ought to be infinite or part of something infinite.

The concept of self-awareness has two components, namely awareness and self. You have a pure state of awareness, which gives you the ability to recognize that you exist, the ability to say, “I am.” Then you have the awareness that you are a self and that it has certain characteristics. We might compare “awareness” to an empty container and “self” to the contents in that container. These contents give you a sense of what and who you are, but this sense would not be possible unless you also had a state of pure awareness, a sense of being. I know this is a subtle point that can be difficult to grasp at first, so let me illustrate it with an example. Let me ask you to close your eyes and then open them again. When your eyes were closed, you could see nothing, and now that your eyes are open, you are seeing this website. However, your ability to see is not limited to this website. You know that your eyes have the ability to see many different things. So we might say that there is a distinction between your ability to see and the object you are seeing. Your eyes are more than the object they are actually seeing right now, for they can see other things other than this website. Likewise, there is a distinction between your sense of self and the pure awareness that you exist. Your pure awareness is more than the sense of self upon which it is focused right now. As you can move your eyes from this book and see something different, you can move your pure awareness from your current sense of self and experience something beyond that self.
what this means is that the consciousness you is far beyond MORE than and distinct from any self you can create, meaning any self you create and believe yourself to be can never truly contain your full conscious being, as the conscious being will always be more than or distinct from said conception of the pure consciousness. the self then and consciousness itself necessarily can and does expand beyond the self, and as it can never truly be contained within a self, the conscious you must necessarily be beyond the body and of an infinite nature. This must necessarily be so, otherwise we infinitely regress into a reductio ad absurdum.


  • ones own  being, and existence itself is necessarily infinite, otherwise everything becomes absurd. 
  • Atheism is infinitely unlikely, the self being god is infinitely likely.

  Thank you for this debate. God's existence isn't metaphysically necessary. Metaphysics is a field of study concerning first principles. From our fundamental principles concerning reality and mind, it isn't apparent that god is necessary at all. 

  I argue that mind is likely emergent. All inductive evidence indicates that mind is a product of the brain. This is evidenced by the fact that mental states can be changed by physical changes in the brain, such as brain cancer (1), psychedelic drugs (2), or even alcohol (3). If mind is emergent from physical systems, then it is not fundamental to the existence of the universe, and therefore cannot be the creator of the universe. If it is even possible that mind is not fundamental to the existence of the universe, then a god cannot be metaphysically necessary.

  My opponents arguments rely heavily on a misunderstanding of atheism, and an implicit vagueness of language. For one, atheism is simply the absence of belief in a god, whereas my opponent attempts to frame atheism as a belief system, involving things such as infinite properties and other claims as to the nature of what is, rather than a simple absence of belief in a positive theistic claim. Atheism is not a claim about the infinite plurality of particulars, but it is the abscence of a particular belief that god(s) exist. If we throw this straw man away, the majority of his arguments become nonsensical.

  Secondly, my opponent relies on vague language to attempt to make his case. He claims to argue for a pantheist god, but does not specify what that means. Since pantheism is a broad conceptual framework, an unambiguous definition of what flavor of pantheism is being advocated for is necessary. Also, my opponent never attempts to define consciousness in his argument, but argues like he knows what it is and that it is a quality that is either possessed or not possessed. I argue that consciousness is a term used to describe awareness. Awareness in living things come in gradations, ranging from the very simple, like single celled organisms, to the very complex, like people, and everything in between. This awareness is a direct product of the biological tools provided by evolution for experiencing the world, and as a result, a human is more conscious than a dog, simply because our organs are more developed, like our brains, thus we are more aware than dogs. My opponent further needs to specify what he means when he says "the self is infinite," because he uses the terms in different ways throughout his constructive, and it is a "conclusion" that is central to his arguments.

  My opponents strongest argument is that solipsism is likely true, therefore his individual mind is god, as a creator of the universe. However, under solipsism, all creation has been done unconsciously. Therefore, the conscious mind is not the creator of the universe, but an unconscious mind, within my opponents own framework, and does not fulfill the definition of god as an "intelligent conscious creator." The creation is being done neither consciously, nor intelligently in my opponents solipsistic framework. 

  On all accounts, my opponent has failed to demonstrate why a conscious, intelligent, creator is necessary, or even likely. Whereas it is abundantly clear that it is neither likely, and assuredly not necessary. Unless my opponent can demonstrate that a creator with all those properties exists necessarily, then he cannot fulfill his burden. 
Round 2
THBT: Gods existence is metaphysically necessary
Position: Pro

Thx, Sum1hugme

I have been losing interest in debating in recent times, it seems, as such my argument will be of a more brief constitution. 

Atheism as a lack of belief
 My opponents arguments rely heavily on a misunderstanding of atheism, and an implicit vagueness of language. For one, atheism is simply the absence of belief in a god, whereas my opponent attempts to frame atheism as a belief system
My argument for the infinite divisibility of particulars, which renders a non-pantheistic position absurd, is to show that (from a physicalist standpoint), atheism makes little sense. Alternatively, refusing to believe in some form of omnipresent being is rationally absurd. You claim this is a weak argument and simply brush past it, instead opting to argue on the solipsist front. Since this argument has gone unaddressed, if it is true that the divisibility of particulars is mathematically absurd (as I demonstrated), it would then follow that if physicalism is true, then so is the existence of an omnipresent god. 

what is a pantheist conception? 
Secondly, my opponent relies on vague language to attempt to make his case. He claims to argue for a pantheist god, but does not specify what that means. 
wikipedia suggests:

"Pantheism is the belief that reality, the universe and the cosmos are identical with divinity and a supreme supernatural being or entity, pointing to the universe as being an immanent creator deity still expanding and creating, which has existed since the beginning of time, or that all things compose an all-encompassing"
Spinoza argued that the material universe is the body of God. I claim a similar proposition here. As such, then, pantheism is by nature a physicalist belief system. My solipsist argument is a pansychist argument. If physicalism is untrue (and therefore pantheism), solipsism is then necessarily true, meaning, in the alternative, pansychism is necessarily true.


My opponents strongest argument is that solipsism is likely true, therefore his individual mind is god, as a creator of the universe. However, under solipsism, all creation has been done unconsciously.
Within the terms for accepting this debate. Con and i both agreed the definition of God will be one who is "an intelligent conscious creator" what con has done is conflate being a conscious creator with creating with ones consciousness. 
 It isn't true that a god creating through his consciousness is the only way to define a god. To use an example, the Hindus believe that Brahman does not consciously create the universe/universes but their existence is simply a byproduct of his in and out breathing. As such, then, being conscious that you're creating does not mean you're not creating, nor does it mean you're not god. Since Brahmans breathe is a quality pertaining to his being, it is himself doing the act, whether he is conscious or not. Just as i may not be aware i sleep walk at night, i may still sleep walk. 
If con somehow finds a way around this argument, I will just argue that the conscious and subconscious mind are a coupled system. with one being incapable of existing or operating without the other. As long as the conscious has control over the subconscious to some degree over its manifestations, One can then still be said to be a conscious creator in the terms that Con has defined it as.

Consciousness as an emergent property

Con claims consciousness is an emergent property. An emergent property from what? if con claims it comes from something, which is an emergent property from something. He is still yet to solve the infinite regress. Maybe con hasn't realised it yet, but its irrelevant to pantheism if consciousness is tied down to the brain. It doesn't deny omnipresence if all consciousness and being is one. 

If an emergent property comes from something, i can concede that. I however, cannot concede that an emergent property can come from nothing. Due to the following two propositions:

(1) something exist within itself (2) something exists within something else

If something can come from nothing, it should logically never be capable of going beyond nothing. Therefore, something cannot go beyond nothing, as it falls into a reductio ad absurdum. 

Defining infinity
Con has also asked me to define how the mind is infinite, merriam webster suggests:  extending indefinitely ENDLESSinfinite space
2: immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive

Since all is one, the self then extends indefinitely, hence its infinity. I hope that settles our misunderstanding. Within my round one preface, I offer the conditions for why the self has to be infinite. I recommend you re-read it and attempt to attack it in the next round. Otherwise, the self remains infinite and part of ones own being/consciousness. 


  • Con has dropped all of my arguments and left them without a response, except for my solipsism argument. The biggest disappointment for me is con not responding to the necessity of gods existence, otherwise we fall into an infinite regress of lunacy. He hasn't touched on this topic at all. This argument demonstrates (as things stand) a lack in belief in a deity is logically absurd and ironically, the atheist is betting on infinity. 
  • A lack of belief in a pantheist/pansychist god still remains logically absurd. 
  • As long as the self remains infinite, con has yet to show atheism as being remotely reasonable.

My opponent's account got banned. So, my opponent has, in no way, demonstrated that pantheism, even in a solipsistic framework, is necessary. He can only demonstrate likelihood, but never necessity. That's all I'll say about it. 
Round 3