Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
7
debates
57.14%
won
Topic
#6515
God is real
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
0
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1382
rating
466
debates
46.57%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
Hello, And welcome to this Debate!
Argument I:
The cosmological argument
The cosmos in which we live in is perfect. If gravity were just 1 in 10 to the 40th different (this is a very very big number), stars could not form and thus, life couldn't either. If the cosmobiological constant were just 1 in 10 to the 120th different, the universe could not exist as it is. If the strong nuclear force were different by just 2%, no atoms could form, and no life would form either. The magnetic force could also only differ by a marginal amount, otherwise atoms would separate immediately, and no life would be possibly. The chance of 1 in a Billion is still higher than the 1 in 1o to the 40th chance of life existing. The likelihood of a creator existing is higher than of us existing.
Summarized, it is statistically impossible for a life-sustaining Universe to exist, pointing towards a creator.
Argument II:
The evidence argument
If atheists (or those who do not believe in God) say, that there is no proof for God, I can counter with: Is there proof for anything? Proving something means showing that it cannot be another way. And this simply is not possible in our universe. We can't even prove that we exist, but the evidence that we exist is great because we can talk, walk think and elaborate. So concluding from this, if you question God's existence, you have to question everything, because the overwhelming evidence of God is present. How would you know that your iPhone is made by Apple, and not by something or someone else? You trust in those selling the iPhone, just like I trust in wise men teaching me the wisdom of God.
Argument III:
The Twin analogy
Imagine two twins inside their mother’s womb, speaking before birth.
Twin A: “I believe there’s more than this darkness. One day, we’ll be born into a vast world full of light, air, and sound — where we’ll meet the Mother who made us and who loves us.”
Twin B: “Don’t be ridiculous. There’s no evidence of any Mother. We can’t see her, hear her, or measure her. The only things that exist are what we can touch — the walls of this womb and the cord that feeds us.”
Twin A: “But how do you think we get our life and food? It must come from the Mother.”
Twin B (mocking): “Nonsense! Scientifically, the umbilical cord supplies our food and oxygen. It’s all mechanical — no Mother needed. When the cord stops working, we’ll die, and that’s the end. There is no world beyond the womb.”
Twin A: “But what if the cord isn’t the source of life — just the means by which the Mother sustains us? Maybe the Mother is all around us — unseen, yet real — keeping us alive through this cord. And when we’re ‘born,’ we’ll finally see her face to face.”
Then, one day, birth comes.
To the second twin still in the womb, it looks like the end — the cord breaks, the world collapses.
But to the first twin — it’s the beginning of a greater, brighter life where he finally meets the one he believed in all along.
Summarized, you can comprehend this twin analogy to the existence of God,
Ending
Thank you for participating in this debate. A friendly reminder to keep all of the arguments we will post respectful and that we do not escalate into unfriendly or even hostile behavior. Thank you!
Sources:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntdTWREYFJk - A TOP TIER argument for God
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/UDCjaH-cgYM - The twin analogy (MUST WATCH TO UNDERSTAND ARGUMENT)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/hxF2M-AwZQ8 - The evidence Argument
Other sources, such as Cliffe Knechtle's podcast and the testify page were used as well.
Con
#2
Greetings.
This will be swift and concise primarily due to timing and time allowed.
"The cosmological argument"
"Summarized, it is statistically impossible for a life-sustaining Universe to exist, pointing towards a creator."
This in essence is a non sequitur. It is totally based on reasoning according to rules within our reality.
We have nothing or no basis to attach reasoning outside of it.
"So concluding from this, if you question God's existence, you have to question everything, because the overwhelming evidence of God is present."
My position is not questioning the existence but it is questioning the "evidence" provided actually is evidence. Even from a theist perspective, what is presented can be scrutinized, examined, weighed and assessed.
So the opposing side may wish to offer anything else. In essence, all that has been presented is the cosmological argument that just reasons why cause and effect is what it is.
But it doesn't confirm or reconcile the unknown which is that what is outside what we know which are laws, rules, logic and everything and how things work and the immaterial.
I yield.
Round 2
Pro
#3
If you say that the cosmological argument (which isn't the only one I mentioned) is only appliable within our universe, you clearly imply there is something else, something outside of our reality, hinting towards god.
If you question if the evidence actually is evidence, I can confirm: We take things we observe and test as laws (that's physics), and this evidence I found can be tested as well, for example in a lottery or using statistical calculators, showing that our creation is statistically impossible and we are far too complex to be created.
If we distance ourselves from rational discussion and take ito consideration that there are other realities, we are simply expressing that God is truly real. Because the only place we can observe is our reality, basing evidence on this reality is a must to find things which are true for us. Of course, proving that God exists using our own reality might seem contra productive; but because we can observe patterns and hints to an intelligent mind, we can conclude that God truly is real, even if we can't observe a realm where he is truly present (if you're a christian, you believe you can).
And every piece of evidence can be weighed/assessed; it is a matter of plausibility and faith, in every aspect of life. For example, you have faith that you're doctor doesn't poison you when he prescribes you medicine, because the evidence points to the conclusion that your doctor will not poison you.
Everything we have observed and thus everything we believe is based on faith, because we cannot know if something Is true or not if we do not take evidence from our reality. This includes God.
Con
#4
All you are doing is just rationalizing, making deductive evaluations with logic.
But the question is, before logic and any rule that you are using to say what you're saying existed, how are you able to make what was before all this existed bound by it?
It's like saying or using the rules to basketball before the game existed. The rules apply to the court with a ball and basket.
I'm trying to get you to see you can't rationalize outside of logic and it's hard to contemplate without it at all so you keep running back to it.
Faith is one thing. Knowing is another. You don't know if something is true, so you may believe in it.
Until you actually have evidence where that which is witnessed, you don't know.
So if this is all you have, the debate if this really was one, is as good as done.
Round 3
Pro
#5
You’re assuming that logic itself began with the universe — that it’s a product of the physical world. But that’s a philosophical assumption, not a demonstrated fact.
Logic isn’t a physical law — it’s a reflection of necessary truth. For example, the law of non-contradiction (something can’t both be and not be at the same time) isn’t a property of matter. It’s a necessary principle of reality itself. Even if no universe existed, it would still be true that “nothing” can’t be both nothing and something simultaneously.
So when I use logic to discuss what caused the universe, I’m not smuggling in rules from “inside the game.” I’m using the only tool that allows coherent thought — reason — which is not bound to physical existence.
If you say logic doesn’t apply outside the universe, you’ve actually undercut your own argument, because you’re then saying we can’t know or say anything about ultimate reality — including your own claim that “we can’t use logic.” That statement itself uses logic!
In short:
- You can’t deny logic without using it.
- Logic isn’t a physical construct; it’s an ontological constant.
- Therefore, reasoning about what’s “beyond” isn’t invalid — it’s inevitable.
So no, the debate isn’t done — it just shifted from “does logic apply?” to “is logic contingent or necessary?” And the moment you argue either way, you’ve proven my point that logic must hold universally.
Con
#6
"You’re assuming that logic itself began with the universe — that it’s a product of the physical world. But that’s a philosophical assumption, not a demonstrated fact.
Logic isn’t a physical law — it’s a reflection of necessary truth."
I don't have to prove it began. You have to prove it began anywhere at any time or before time. You've yet to prove logic existed before anything else. You've yet to prove when it exactly started existing and even more so prove it has anything to do with who you posit as God to create everything.
You're using logic, applying logic to something you've yet proven that something is bound by or needed.
Let alone God.
These debates go in circles because they just trail behind beliefs instead of demonstrated objective truth.
So there's nothing else further. It is just that hard for you to think about this or address this without logic because all your talking points are around logic.
But you haven't proven logic existed before it existed to bind rules to things by it.
Basically it's like trying to use the law of causality argument. Everything has to have a cause , right.
But that's while the law exists. How did it work before it existed? That's what you are presuming.
Stop the presumption.
Debate is over. You're not proving anything. Just positing and presuming.
Round 4
Pro
#7
1. Logic exists and is objective.
We both agree that logical laws (like non-contradiction or identity) are universally true and unchanging.
2. Logical truths are not material.
They aren’t located in space, time, or matter. You can’t weigh or touch the law of non-contradiction.
3. Yet they are real and binding.
We rely on them for every rational thought — they hold even when no human is thinking about them.
4. Abstract, immaterial, necessary realities require a source.
Abstract laws can’t exist on their own; they either reside in minds or are instantiated by a mind. If there were no minds, there’d be no “truths” to exist.
5. A finite, contingent universe cannot ground timeless, necessary laws.
If logic simply “is,” why does it hold everywhere, eternally, with absolute consistency? The natural world changes — logic doesn’t. That points beyond nature.
6. Therefore, logic finds its grounding in a necessary, eternal mind.
The laws of thought reflect the rational nature of the Creator — a Mind that is truth itself.
7. That mind is what we mean by God.
Just because you try to disprove one of by, by the way 3 argumentative points doesn't mean, by far, that you have even began to finish this debate off. Reread and respect the argumentative points I provided in my first argument - Wasn't just the cosmological argument.
Round 5
Pro
#9
Everything we can observe — matter, energy, space, and time — is contingent; it exists but could have not existed. Science itself shows the universe had a beginning and runs on precise, intelligible laws.
Laws, order, and existence itself require an underlying explanation — a necessary, self-existent reality that isn’t bound by space, time, or matter.
That foundation cannot be physical, because all physical things began. It must therefore be non-physical, eternal, intelligent, and rational, since it grounds logic and order.
A mindless cause cannot produce reason; chance cannot generate laws. The most coherent explanation is a necessary Mind that exists by its own nature and gives being and order to everything else.
That Mind is what we call God.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause, and the universe began to exist, so the universe has a cause that must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and powerful — this is the cosmological argument. Everything in the universe is contingent; there must be a necessary being that exists by its own nature to ground all contingent reality — also pointing to God. The universe’s physical constants are finely tuned for life; the best explanation is design by an intelligent Mind — the teleological argument. Objective moral values exist, requiring a moral lawgiver beyond humans — the moral argument. Finally, we can conceive of a maximally great being (perfect in power, knowledge, and goodness), and existing in reality is greater than existing only in thought — this is the ontological argument. Together, these lines of reasoning converge on the existence of God.
Nothing can be proven, only evidence can be collected and, using logic, you can conclude that God is real.
Sources (which you, by the way, never had, thus never providing any real facts just your own logic reasoning which I disproved):
No content
Looks like there is nothing here yet
dude I missed this debate OMG, but if you still believe God is real in the big 25 you need a job.
Case closed.