Instigator / Pro

God doesn’t exist.


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 1 vote and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

No information

Round 1
It would be simpler for you to give your context for why you believe in a god to me since I'm not the one making the claim.
Establishing Burden of Proof  - The Atheist has quite a bit

In this debate, the atheist side is asserting that the god Con proposes (or multiple gods if Con runs several angles or a polytheistic angle) doesn't exist. Even though it says 'doesn't' and doesn't say 'gods' it is open to Con suggesting god after god.

This is further supported by the fact that Pro semi-comedically offers this in the short description:

Prove to me that God exists and I’ll convert to your religion.

However, we must appreciate that it would be totally unfair and corrupt to let Pro decide if Con won the debate or not. This debate is entitled 'God doesn't exist' and the long description inside has literally 'no information'.


Stretching the definition of 'exist' to meet the Con BoP

Before the debating about my suggested god being real gets going I wish to run a semantic Kritik. There are several gods that exist as characters, irrefutably, in the holy scriptures they are based in. These include God of the Bible and the Torah before it, Shiva and Vishnu of Hinduism, Allah of the Qur'an... You get the idea. All of them irrefutably do exist as characters and ideas, even if they don't exist in reality (I am not saying they don't, in this debate, I am saying they don't need to).

There are definitions of 'exist' that completely work with this:

to be; have the ability to be knownrecognized, or understood
to be able to live

 to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions

I get it, this is 'dirty play' Pro will say but is Pro able to deny that under these definitions, God irrefutably does 'exist'? Why are we to adhere to the definition that Pro prefers? This is something to consider and I will keep it going throughout the debate but I do not necessarily intend to win on that alone, of course.


The actual problem with the atheist reality - it refutes itself

While atheists are quick to point the finger at Theists, as well as Deists, and say 'how did your god come into existence?' as well as 'hang on, if your god is needed to make reality, what made your god?' they fail to appreciate the irony; their own proposed reality is rife with contradictions.

If the 'big bang' made reality, how were the big bang's ingredients' existence capable of having been 'real' at all? You can't create reality with unreal objects. This also applies long after the supposed big bang poofed everything into existence. For example, if everything is totally and utterly random, disorganised and without orchestration, what is it that is keeping laws of physics, chemistry and biology going? How and why is reality so consistent scientifically? Why isn't a frog turning into a purple lamp? Why isn't someone's finger transforming into a cable or string? Why is it all sensible, with a coherent passing through time and rationality to its events?

The very science that atheists use to comprehend and explain reality wouldn't be possible unless an unfathomable amount of luck kept letting the randomness not chaotically ruin our Earth, the sun, the moon and all laws of physics, chemistry and biology... Not even all, any of them.


Occam's/Ockham's razor is a terrible way to go about life and reaching truth

There is a reason why of all animals on Earth we are probably the only species that irrefutably dominated the planet with such a huge lead over whoever you consider second place; we are utterly curious, creative and inquisitive. Humans are the only animals, yes that's right the only animal, to not take things at face value, to pursue truth further than what their senses tell them is obvious. We would never ever have made scientific strides or really anything at all you consider uniquely human progress beyond what other animals have achieved, had we been loyal to this ridiculous thing called Occam's razor.

If the simplest answer is always to be considered closest to truth and that is the mentality we run with, we may as well be dogs, chimpanzees, dolphins or some other relatively high functioning species that has zero potential to be as intelligent and progressed as humans are. What true ingenuity stems from is seeking complex answers, secrets behind the curtain of what is obvious.

There is no way you are going to even begin to figure out what lies behind reality's curtain if you stick with the simplest explanations. All atheists supporting Occam's razor are hypocrites deceiving themselves, since easily over 90% of the science they are using came from the refusal to take the simplest explanation as the true one in the first place of discoveries and progressing hypotheses to theories with conclusions.


God's mechanics and why God doesn't need a creator

So, this one will be pretty unique and I'm not playing just to win this debate here, this is actually what I believe is reality's god's mechanics.

I think whichever god is real is originally one part of a 2-part combination that is the all-powerful entity. You see, originally I believe that there was, is and always no matter what will be, a 'generator' of sorts. Originally, it was a totally random generator of variables but now it's been hijacked by the god(s).

It's sort of a machine but obviously not an electronic one. This generator constantly used to fluctuate what is or isn't true/real and is. It eventually randomly created the conscious entity we now know as 'god' or whatever name it/she/he/they has/have. The conscious entity was then also randomly granted 'is true/real' to having the ability to hijack/control the random generator, even for a few seconds or something. In whatever gap of time it had, it already granted itself omniscience and at least invulnerability to never be set to die/cease to exist. Then the entity, now having obviously unlimited time to think about what to do next, began playing around with the switches.

I reckon this entity could feel some boredom and loneliness of sorts but it/she/he/they probably can't feel other emotions we do as they are much more to do with hormones and physical brain structure. This being eventually made Earth as one of its experiments, you get the idea. This reality is essentially simulated as the only real thing is that generator so even the god itself's consciousness is part of the simulation). This god-entity began to get bored again when ti controlled everything, as it is like watching a series you both control and know the ending of, over and over again. So, some things are random. That explains why at the quantum level there's chaos and randomness and crazy laws of physics and chemistry whereas when we zoom out there's much less randomness and more structure. God has left some things random, I am not supporting an omnipotent all-encompassing god, that is too boring for the god I predict is real. Instead, the random generator is still running, not all of its variables are hijacked.
Round 2
Step the fuck up boy or I will keep you kneeling to your new god.

Round 3
Pasta monster
Round 5
I accept your surrender.