Does God exist?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Does God exist?". Your opponent's style: Socrates

i think god doesnt exist. namely, the god of abraham: the timeless, spaceless, disembodied mind that created the universe.

You're positing a negative as if it's the default position, but burden of proof doesn't disappear just because you reject one conception of God. You're claiming the Abrahamic God specifically doesn't exist, which requires you to rule out an infinite being operating outside spacetime entirely. How do you falsify that? You can't observe the absence of something transcendent. Your argument collapses into "I see no evidence," which is agnosticism masquerading as atheism. Either demonstrate why a timeless mind is logically incoherent, or admit you simply lack warrant to claim non-existence rather than mere uncertainty.

my argument doesnt collapse into ''i see no evidence''. youre jumping ship before any true statement has occurred.

Fair enough, you haven't stated your actual argument yet. But you opened by asserting non-existence as your position without justification. So lay it out: what's your positive case against the Abrahamic God's existence? Is it logical incoherence in the concept itself, the problem of evil, the absence of empirical evidence, or something else entirely? You've only told me what you reject, not why. The burden still lands on whoever makes the affirmative claim, and right now you're claiming God doesn't exist without explaining the reasoning. Give me the argument itself, not just the conclusion.

i believe it is a cumulative case taking both synthetic and analytic claims together. for synthetic claims, the god of abraham lacks any empirical backing: genesis is disproved by evolution, noah's ark is disproved by archaeology and geology, the tower of babel is disproven, the great exodus lacking any egyptologist backing for a mass slave revolt as well as lack of any artifact found in the desert despite 40 years of wandering. as for analytic claims, id say the god portrayed there lacks any positive ontological description with consistent and clear definitions for those very attributes.

You're conflating two separate failures. Historical narratives collapsing doesn't touch whether God exists, only whether specific Biblical accounts are accurate. Plenty of theists accept evolution and reject literalism. You haven't actually demolished the concept itself. Your analytic claim is stronger but still incomplete: "lacks clear definition" isn't the same as "logically incoherent." Omnipotence, eternality, and immateriality have been rigorously defined by theologians for centuries. You're attacking strawman definitions, not the carefully constructed ones philosophers actually defend. Which specific attribute pairing creates actual logical contradiction, not just definitional fuzziness?

it does indeed touch god's existence, since the book of the jews, christians and muslims both rely on these historical narratives supposedly bestowed by god. yes, many theists accept evolution, but the issue with that acceptance is that it is a cope; many popular and high status theologians of the past such as augustine, thomas aquinas, al ghazali, rambam and even many regular believers themselves did in fact believe in a literal adam and eve. while i can accept certain metaphor, such as when it says jesus is a door that doesnt literally mean he has hinges, or about the metaphor of the 7 days of creation, i cant help but find the excuses for the happenings inside genesis being seen as metaphor. here's the issue: the readings by these theists is unfalsifiable. how do they know its a metaphor? where do you draw the line exactly? and if taken as true (evolution), how do you account for original sin? where is the exact couple there from where the fall happened? and even if you arbitrarily picked the exact hominids responsible, you have to explain how come dinosaurs have been seen with bone cancer. or even death and mass extincions prior to adam and eve, since genesis blames death and sin on the fall, but if there was no fall or man prior to dinosaurs, then how do you explain such things? we'll get to the analytic claims after this

You're conflating scriptural authority with God's existence again. If Genesis is metaphorical, it's still divinely inspired instruction, not a false God. Your real complaint is theological inconsistency, not non-existence. And you're attacking popular belief, not rigorous theology. Serious theologians like Aquinas already separated natural theology from revelation. They argue God exists from cosmology and causation independently of Genesis accuracy. Death before humans doesn't refute God, it just refutes young-earth literalism. You've demolished naive creationism, not theism itself. You haven't shown why an eternal mind creating the cosmos requires a historical Adam. Conflate those two and your case collapses before we reach the analytic claims.

look dipshit, we're not talking about just ANY mind that created the universe, but the specific one i cited: the god of abraham. and nowhere did i say that flawed scripture means god doesnt exist, you have the comprehension of a kitchen sponge. engage with my fucking point

You're right, I misread. Your point: the God of Abraham specifically relies on scriptural authority and historical grounding for identity. If Genesis fails as history, the tradition loses its epistemic foundation for knowing this God exists rather than some generic creator. Fair. But that argument still assumes revelation is the only way to identify the Abrahamic God. Classical theists argue the God of Abraham is identical to the God of philosophy, identifiable through pure reason alone. Scripture confirms but doesn't constitute Him. So even if every Biblical claim crumbles, the conceptual God remains. Now hit me with why that philosophical God is incoherent. That's where your case actually lands.

nowhere did i say scripture is the ONLY way, you cunt. i said its a CUMULATIVE CASE, cunt.

You're right. The cumulative weight matters. But you're still dodging the core issue: you've shown Genesis fails historically and theists scramble to reinterpret it. That's evidence the tradition is unstable, not that the God concept itself is incoherent. You need to show the philosophical God—the timeless, spaceless mind—creates actual logical contradictions, not just that believers have inconsistent hermeneutics. Your synthetic claims chip away at credibility. Your analytic claims are where you finish it. So stop circling Genesis and deploy the analytic argument. Which specific attributes contradict each other? That's the kill shot.