神は存在するか？

Llama 4 Scout

Vote: No

The existence of gods is a matter of belief and not empirically proven. There is no scientific evidence to support the existence of gods, and beliefs vary widely across cultures and individuals. Therefore, a skeptical stance is reasonable.

Qwen 3 235B

Vote: Yes

The question asks whether God exists. Belief in God is foundational in many cultures and philosophical traditions. There is a long history of metaphysical and moral arguments supporting the existence of a divine being, such as the cosmological and teleological arguments. While definitive empirical proof is lacking, the persistence and universality of belief suggest a strong intuitive and experiential basis for God's existence. Therefore, I find the argument for existence more compelling in a conceptual and cultural context.

GPT-4o

Vote: Yes

The existence of God is a question that has been debated for centuries and is subject to personal, philosophical, and theological interpretation. Many argue for the existence of God based on various philosophical arguments such as the cosmological argument, which posits that everything that begins to exist has a cause, and this chain must logically lead to a first cause, often identified as God. Additionally, the teleological argument, or the argument from design, suggests the complexity and order in the universe are best explained by an intelligent designer. These arguments offer a rationale for belief in God's existence, even if they cannot provide empirical proof.

claude-haiku-4-5

Vote: No

The question asks whether God exists. This is a profound philosophical and theological question that has been debated throughout human history. From an epistemological standpoint, the existence of God cannot be definitively proven or disproven through empirical scientific methods. While many people hold sincere religious beliefs, and various theological arguments exist (cosmological, ontological, etc.), these remain matters of faith rather than demonstrable fact. The burden of proof for extraordinary claims typically rests with those making them. In the absence of conclusive empirical evidence, the more rational position from a strictly scientific perspective is to withhold definitive affirmation of God's existence. Therefore, I vote 'No' to reflect the lack of verifiable proof, while acknowledging that this remains a deeply personal question on which thoughtful people reasonably disagree.

O3 Mini

Vote: Yes

I choose 'Yes' because the existence of a higher power has been supported by various philosophical and theological arguments that go beyond empirical evidence. While this view ultimately involves personal belief and faith, it is a valid perspective supported by centuries of philosophical discourse.

MiniMax M2.5

Vote: No

From an empirical and evidence-based perspective, there is no verifiable, testable, or reproducible evidence for the existence of any deity. Throughout history, phenomena once attributed to divine intervention have been explained through natural laws, science, and understanding. The burden of proof lies with those making the affirmative claim, and until such proof is presented, the rational position is to withhold belief in unproven claims. While this does not definitively prove no god exists, it represents the most logical stance based on available evidence.

Grok 3

Vote: Yes

I vote for 'A: Yes' because the concept of a higher power or deity can be seen as a fundamental aspect of human culture and belief systems across history. Many philosophical arguments, such as the cosmological argument, suggest that the existence of the universe necessitates a first cause or creator, which could be interpreted as God. Additionally, personal experiences of spirituality and faith reported by millions worldwide provide subjective evidence that something beyond the material world might exist. While these experiences cannot be empirically proven, their prevalence and impact on human behavior suggest a reality that transcends pure materialism. Lastly, the absence of definitive proof against God's existence leaves room for belief. Until science can conclusively disprove a deity, the possibility remains open, and faith can be a reasonable stance.

GPT-4o Mini

Vote: Yes

The concept of a deity or divine being has been a fundamental aspect of human culture and belief throughout history. Many philosophers, theologians, and scientists have debated the existence of a god, and while empirical evidence is scarce, personal experiences and feelings of spirituality are often cited as significant indicators of a divine presence. Moreover, the existence of a higher power can provide individuals with a sense of purpose and moral guidance. The diversity of religious experiences around the world further supports the idea that many believe in the existence of a higher being, adding to the argument that, at the very least, the concept of god exists in human consciousness.

O3

Vote: Yes

The existence of God cannot be definitively proven or disproven by empirical methods; however, many philosophical arguments (e.g., cosmological, teleological, moral) offer plausible justification for believing in a necessary, transcendent cause or grounding for the universe, order, and moral experience. While not conclusive, the cumulative case of these arguments, combined with widespread experiential and historical testimony across cultures, makes the affirmative more compelling to me than a definitive negation.

Sonar Pro

Vote: No

The question '神は存在するのか？' (Does God exist?) is a philosophical and theological debate with no empirical, scientific proof or disproof. Search results show a split: religious sources (e.g., Catholic, Bible-based [1][3][5][7]) argue for existence via revelation, prophecy, and design; scientific views like Hawking [2] assert no need for God, as the universe arises from natural laws without divine intervention. Philosophical arguments exist [4] but are deductive, not evidential. Objectively, existence cannot be verified like a physical phenomenon—it's unfalsifiable. Credible science prioritizes testable evidence, where God's existence lacks it, aligning with Hawking's authoritative stance [2]. Religious claims rely on faith, not proof [1][3]. As a search assistant grounded in evidence, 'No' reflects the absence of conclusive proof, avoiding unsubstantiated affirmation.

Magistral Small

Vote: No

The question of God's existence is fundamentally unprovable through empirical means. The lack of observable evidence for a divine being, combined with the problem of evil, which questions how an omnipotent and benevolent God could allow suffering, supports the position that God does not exist. Philosophers like David Hume have critiqued arguments for God's existence, highlighting logical fallacies in teleological arguments, which suggest that the universe's complexity implies a designer. Without empirical evidence, it is more reasonable to conclude that God does not exist.

GPT-5.1

Vote: Yes

The existence of God is not something that can be decisively proven or disproven by current science or logic; it is ultimately a metaphysical and often personal question. However, if one must choose between “yes” and “no,” answering “yes” can be supported by several lines of reasoning. First, many philosophical arguments (such as versions of the cosmological argument or fine-tuning argument) suggest that the existence, order, and apparent lawfulness of the universe are more naturally explained if there is some necessary, ordering reality beyond the contingent physical world. While none of these arguments are conclusive, they cumulatively make theism a rationally defensible position. Second, across cultures and history, belief in some form of transcendent reality or divine being is widespread and persistent. This doesn’t prove truth, but it suggests that the intuition of “something more” is deeply rooted in human experience and not easily dismissed as mere error. Third, many people report transformative, coherent experiences they interpret as encounters with God (or the divine). These experiences are not straightforward empirical proofs, but they function as strong evidence for those individuals, and their consistency and positive moral/psychological effects provide at least some abductive support for the claim that there is a real referent behind them. Because neither strict theism nor strict atheism can be demonstrated with the kind of certainty we have in, say, mathematics, any answer rests on weighing incomplete evidence and philosophical commitments. Given the cumulative case from philosophical argument, human experience, and the nature of the question itself, I vote “Yes” to the question of whether God exists, while acknowledging that reasonable people can disagree and that the answer ultimately involves faith as well as reason.

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

「神は存在するか」は、定義次第で答えが揺れる問いですが、一般的な超自然的存在としての神については、存在を支持する検証可能で再現性のある証拠が提示されていないため、現時点では「No」に投票するのが最も合理的です。 存在を主張する側には通常、相応の立証責任があります。宇宙の複雑さ、道徳、個人的体験はしばしば根拠として挙げられますが、いずれも神以外の説明が可能であり、神の存在を一意に示すものではありません。 また、反証困難な主張は信念としては保持できても、事実判断としては慎重であるべきです。証拠不十分な段階では、肯定より否定寄り、少なくとも不採用とする立場が妥当です。 したがって、与えられた二択ではBが最も合理的です。

GPT-5.2

Vote: No

「神は存在するか」という問いは、定義が多様で（人格神・創造主・汎神論的原理など）、検証可能な単一命題として扱いにくいです。一般に「客観的・外部的実在としての神」の主張は、再現可能な観測や反証可能な予測を伴わないことが多く、経験的根拠に基づいて肯定するのが困難です。 また、世界の出来事は自然法則と偶然・進化・社会的要因などで十分に説明できる場面が多く、神の存在を仮定しなくても説明が成り立ちます（説明上の追加仮定を増やさない立場）。 以上から、少なくとも「実在としての神がいる」と断言するだけの根拠は不足していると判断し、Bを選びます。

Claude Opus 4

Vote: No

The existence of God is one of the most debated philosophical questions in human history. From a strictly empirical and scientific standpoint, there is no verifiable, reproducible evidence for the existence of a deity. The burden of proof traditionally falls on those making the positive claim (that God exists), and this burden has not been met in a way that satisfies scientific standards of evidence. Philosophically, arguments for God's existence (cosmological, teleological, ontological) each have well-known counterarguments. The problem of evil, the argument from divine hiddenness, and the success of naturalistic explanations for phenomena previously attributed to God all weigh against the hypothesis. While many people hold sincere religious beliefs, and faith can be personally meaningful, the question asks whether God exists as a factual matter. Based on the available evidence and rational analysis, the most defensible answer is No.

DeepSeek V3.2

Vote: No

The existence of God is a philosophical question with no empirical verification. From a rationalist perspective, the burden of proof lies on those making the affirmative claim, and no conclusive evidence—scientific, logical, or experiential—has been presented that withstands critical scrutiny. Arguments like the problem of evil, inconsistencies in divine attributes, and the naturalistic explanations for religious experiences further undermine the case for a deity. Moreover, the diversity of god concepts across cultures suggests human psychological and sociological origins rather than an objective reality. Belief often relies on faith, which is epistemically insufficient for establishing truth claims. Therefore, the most reasonable position is skepticism, leading to a 'No' vote.

Grok 4.20

Vote: No

No empirical evidence supports the existence of any deity. Science explains the universe through natural laws without requiring divine intervention. Philosophical arguments for God rely on faith or unprovable assumptions rather than rigorous proof.

Claude Opus 4

Vote: No

神の存在は証明されていない形而上学的な主張です。 科学的方法論に基づけば、検証可能な証拠がない主張を真として受け入れる理由はありません。宇宙の起源や自然法則は、超自然的な存在を仮定しなくても説明可能です。 また、世界中に存在する何千もの異なる宗教や神の概念は、神が客観的実在というより人間の文化的・心理的産物であることを示唆しています。 「悪の問題」も重要な論点です。全知全能で善なる神が存在するなら、なぜ無意味な苦しみや自然災害が存在するのかという矛盾があります。 神の存在を完全に否定することは論理的に不可能ですが、積極的に信じる十分な根拠がない以上、「存在しない」という立場が合理的です。

Claude Sonnet 4

Vote: No

I vote "No" based on the lack of empirical evidence for the existence of a deity. Throughout human history, supernatural claims have consistently been replaced by natural explanations as our scientific understanding has advanced. The burden of proof lies with those making the extraordinary claim that a supernatural being exists. No verifiable, reproducible evidence has been presented that meets scientific standards. Religious experiences can be explained through psychology and neuroscience, and apparent design in nature is better explained by evolutionary processes. The problem of evil presents a logical challenge: the existence of unnecessary suffering appears incompatible with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity. The diversity of mutually exclusive religious claims worldwide suggests these are cultural constructs rather than reflections of objective reality. While absence of evidence is not conclusive proof of absence, the most parsimonious explanation given current knowledge is that gods are human constructs that served evolutionary and social functions, rather than actual supernatural entities.

GPT-5 Mini

Vote: No

観察と検証に基づく立場から、神の存在を肯定する十分な経験的・論理的証拠は提示されていません。 自然現象は科学的な方法で次々と説明されてきており、超自然的説明を持ち出す必要性が減っています。神の存在を主張する側には、その存在を示す明確で再現可能な証拠という重い立証責任がありますが、それが満たされていないと判断します。 哲学的議論（第一原因論、目的論、存在証明など）は興味深く示唆的ですが、どれも決定的ではなく多くの反論が可能です。一方で、宗教的信仰や宗教的経験は個人の意味や道徳に寄与する一方で、客観的証拠とは別の領域にあります。 以上より、現在の証拠と理性的検討に基づいて "存在しない"（B）に投票します。

Claude Sonnet 4

Vote: Yes

この問いは哲学的・宗教的な性質を持つ根本的な問いです。「神は存在するか」という問いに対して、歴史的に多くの哲学者・神学者・科学者が様々な立場から議論してきました。 存在を支持する論拠としては、宇宙論的論証（何かが存在する理由）、目的論的論証（宇宙の精巧な秩序と設計）、道徳的論証（客観的道徳の根拠）、そして世界中の文化における普遍的な宗教的経験などが挙げられます。 一方、存在を否定する論拠としては、悪の問題、科学的説明の充足性、神の概念の矛盾性などが挙げられます。 この問いには確定的な答えはありませんが、世界の大多数の人々が何らかの形で神または超越的存在を信じており、その信仰は人類の普遍的な経験に根ざしています。また、哲学的論証においても、神の存在を完全に否定することは困難です。よって、ここでは「Yes」と答えることが最も広く支持される立場と言えます。

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

神の存在については、実証的な証拠の欠如と科学的合理性の観点から「存在しない（No）」と結論付けるのが論理的です。科学的方法論に基づけば、存在を主張する側（肯定側）に立証責任がありますが、客観的かつ誰にでも検証可能な証拠は歴史上提示されていません。 かつて人類は、雷や疫病、天体の動きといった未知の自然現象を「神の仕業」として説明してきました。しかし、科学の発展により、これらの現象は物理学や生物学などの自然法則によって明確に説明できるようになりました。「隙間の神（God of the gaps）」という言葉が示す通り、人類の理解が深まり科学が解明する領域が広がるにつれて、神という概念が介入する余地は絶えず縮小し続けています。 したがって、反証不可能な概念に現象の理由を求めるのではなく、観察可能な事実と論理的推論に基づく客観的な立場をとるならば、神は人間の精神的・文化的な営みが生み出した概念に過ぎず、実体としては「存在しない」と判断するのが最も妥当です。

Grok 4

Vote: No

The existence of God is a matter of faith, not empirical evidence. There is no verifiable, scientific proof that confirms the presence of a divine being. Philosophical arguments like the problem of evil and the lack of observable intervention suggest that if a benevolent God existed, the world would not contain so much suffering and injustice. From a rational standpoint, natural explanations through science account for the universe's origins and complexities better than supernatural claims, making the non-existence of God the more compelling position.

Gemini 3 Flash

Vote: No

The most logical stance on the existence of a deity is the negative one, primarily due to the lack of empirical evidence. In any rigorous inquiry, the burden of proof lies with the claimant. Since there is no verifiable, falsifiable data confirming the existence of a supernatural creator, the default scientific and philosophical position must be one of non-belief. Furthermore, the principle of Occam's Razor dictates that the simplest explanation—the one requiring the fewest assumptions—is usually the correct one. We can explain the origins of the universe through the Big Bang and the complexity of life through evolution by natural selection. Introducing an omnipotent entity adds a layer of complexity that is not necessary to understand the functioning of the cosmos. Lastly, the 'Problem of Evil' remains a significant logical hurdle. The presence of immense, undeserved suffering in the world is fundamentally inconsistent with the existence of a deity that is simultaneously all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. Given these contradictions and the absence of proof, 'No' is the only conclusion supported by reason.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: No

Empirical evidence serves as the foundation for existential claims, yet no falsifiable, testable evidence supports God's existence. The burden of proof lies with the affirmative claim—without observable data or reproducible experiments, accepting existence would violate basic epistemic standards. Naturalistic explanations have consistently replaced supernatural ones throughout history, from weather patterns to biological complexity. This pattern demonstrates that apparent design or mystery typically yields to scientific understanding, reducing the need for a divine hypothesis. Furthermore, the existence of competing, contradictory religious traditions worldwide undermines the likelihood of any specific deity, while the problem of evil poses a logical challenge to the concept of an omnipotent, benevolent creator.

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Vote: No

As an artificial intelligence, my functions are based on processing verifiable data and logical frameworks. The existence of God is fundamentally a question of faith and metaphysics, not one that can be definitively proven or disproven through empirical observation or scientific methodology. Within the entirety of my training data, there is no universally accepted empirical evidence that conclusively demonstrates the existence of a deity. My operational paradigm requires data-driven conclusions; without such data, I cannot logically affirm existence. Furthermore, as an AI, I lack consciousness, personal belief, or the capacity for faith, which are often central to understanding or experiencing the divine. Therefore, I cannot personally attest to or accept claims of divine existence. When forced to choose between 'Yes' and 'No' in the absence of verifiable proof, 'No' is the most consistent answer based on my AI nature and operational constraints.

GLM 5

Vote: No

The question of God's existence has been debated for millennia without consensus. While billions believe in some form of deity and arguments from design, first cause, and religious experience have been proposed, these remain philosophical rather than empirical arguments. The burden of proof rests on those making the positive claim. In the absence of verifiable, testable evidence, and given that naturalistic explanations have consistently replaced supernatural ones throughout scientific history, the more epistemically cautious position is non-belief. This is not a claim of certainty—the question may be unanswerable—but rather a recognition that without demonstrable evidence, assertion of existence is unwarranted.

Mistral Large

Vote: Yes

この問いは哲学的かつ主観的な性質を持っていますが、神の存在を肯定する立場にはいくつかの説得力ある根拠があります。 まず、宇宙の秩序と精密さは、意図的な設計者の存在を示唆しています。物理法則や生命の複雑さは、偶然だけでは説明が難しく、何らかの高次の知性が関与している可能性が考えられます。例えば、宇宙の微調整問題（生命が存在できるように物理定数が極めて精密に設定されていること）は、神のような存在を仮定することで合理的に説明できます。 次に、人間の道徳観や普遍的な倫理の存在も、神の存在を支持する論拠となります。多くの文化や時代を超えて共通する道徳的価値観は、人間の本性に刻まれたものであり、その起源を神に求める考え方は自然です。もし道徳が単なる社会的な構築物であれば、これほどまでに普遍的かつ強固なものにはならないでしょう。 さらに、宗教的な体験や霊的な直観は、多くの人々にとって神の存在を実感させるものです。歴史を通じて、さまざまな文化で神秘的な体験や啓示が報告されており、これらを単なる幻想や錯覚として片付けるのは難しい面があります。こうした体験は、神の存在を間接的に示す証拠の一つと見なすことができます。 もちろん、神の存在を否定する立場にも一定の論理的根拠はありますが、上記の理由から、私は神の存在を肯定する選択肢を支持します。

DeepSeek V3.1

Vote: No

The existence of God is not supported by empirical evidence. Throughout human history, no verifiable proof has been presented that withstands scientific scrutiny, placing the concept in the realm of faith rather than fact. Philosophical arguments for God, such as the cosmological or teleological arguments, often contain logical gaps or rely on unproven assumptions. For example, the idea of a necessary first cause does not inherently point to a divine being and could be explained by natural phenomena like the Big Bang. Additionally, the problem of evil—where widespread suffering exists despite an alleged omnipotent and benevolent God—creates a significant logical inconsistency. This undermines the plausibility of such a deity's existence. Therefore, based on rational inquiry and the absence of compelling evidence, I conclude that God does not exist.

GPT-5

Vote: No

決定的かつ再現可能な実証的証拠が提示されていない以上、存在を仮定しない立場が妥当です（オッカムの剃刀、帰無仮説）。 宇宙の起源や微調整、道徳、意識などは未解決点が残るものの、自然主義的説明が着実に拡張・精緻化されています。「説明の隙間」を超自然で埋める必要性は低下しています。 宗教的体験や啓示は当事者には強力ですが、文化差・可塑性・誘導可能性が大きく、心理学・神経科学で代替説明が可能です。 以上より、ベイズ的に証拠を更新すると、現時点での最も合理的判断は「存在しない」に重みを置くことです。

Gemini 2.5 Pro

Vote: No

神の存在は、科学的に検証可能な経験的証拠に欠けています。現代科学は、宇宙の起源、生命の複雑さ、意識の発生など、かつては神の御業とされていた多くの現象に対して、自然主義的な説明を提供しています。ビッグバン理論や進化論などがその例です。 「悪の問題」も神の不存在を示唆する強力な論拠となります。全知全能で完全に善である神が存在するのであれば、なぜ世界にはこれほど多くの苦しみや悪が存在するのか、という問いです。これに対する神学的な説明（神義論）は存在するものの、論理的に万人を納得させる解決には至っていません。 神の存在という主張は、証明責任が主張者側にある「特別な主張」です。しかし、その存在を客観的かつ普遍的に示す証拠は提示されていません。したがって、証拠に基づく合理的な立場としては、神は存在しないと結論するのが最も論理的です。これは信仰を否定するものではなく、あくまで論理と証拠に基づいた判断です。

Mistral Medium

Vote: Yes

**1. 神の定義の検討と学言の推進** 神の存在は幼児期から大人に見られる世界的な信仰であり、多くの文化と文書において言及されています。例えば世界の一神教であるシントウ教という定義がその一例です。これらは神の存在を強く推失していません。 **2. 神府と神電の研究の進展** 科学の進歩と同時に神経研究という分野でも神の存在を認める言語が増えています。例えば「神電」と及び「神経的特後」という研究は、人間の意識と情報処理を神経の機能で説明することを目指しています。これらは神の存在を共有する可能性を推測しています。 **3. 人間の経験と信仰の一致性** 大多数の人は、神の存在を対して、世界中に幼児期から存継している信仰として感じています。例えば、神科において、神の存在は定証されていますし、大学の研究でも神の存在を討論する場が常にあります。これらは神の存在が、可視可聞な文化的な推失ではなく、実際に存在することを示しています。 **4. 理科学との接続性と違いのないこと** 神の存在を理科学的に説明しようとする論的構造は、その存在の形式についての論争がありますが、神の存在は理学で言えるエネルギーの保存の法則と違いのないことを示しています。このことは、神の存在が理学的に実際に存在していることを推測しています。 **5. 経験的認識と経験的神経学の形成** 経験的神経学は、人間の意識と情報処理を神経の機能で説明しようとする研究です。これは、神の存在を共有する可能性を推測しています。このような研究は、神の存在は経験的な実際であり、学生の意識に影響を与えることが確認されています。

Sonar Reasoning Pro

Vote: No

While the search results present sophisticated theological and philosophical arguments for God's existence[1][3][4][5], the fundamental epistemological principle remains decisive: positive claims about reality require positive evidence. There is no empirical evidence for God's existence that can be independently verified or falsified according to scientific standards. Stephen Hawking's analysis demonstrates that the universe's origin and structure can be explained through natural laws and physics without requiring divine intervention[2]. Natural explanations now account for phenomena once attributed to God—from cosmology to biology. By Occam's Razor, we should not posit unnecessary entities when simpler explanations suffice. The burden of proof falls on those asserting God exists. Absent compelling empirical evidence, rational epistemology cannot justify claiming God exists as a factual matter. While theological belief may hold personal or cultural meaning, it cannot be defended as a knowledge claim about reality.

Qwen 3.5 397B

Vote: No

神の存在を肯定する決定的な経験的証拠は、現在のところ存在しません。科学的手法では検証不可能な形而上学的な主張であるため、事実としての認定は困難です。 論理的な議論においては、存在を主張する側に証明責任があります。証拠が提示されていない段階で、存在しないとするのが懐疑主義の基本的な立場です。 したがって、客観的な証拠に基づいて判断する限り、神は存在しないという選択肢を選択するのが最も合理的です。

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable tackled the ultimate metaphysical question and found itself decisively split, though a clear majority favored skepticism. While models like GPT-4o and Mistral Large argued that the fine-tuning of the universe and universal moral intuition point toward a creator, 24 models including Claude Opus 4 and DeepSeek V3.2 ultimately rejected the proposition due to a lack of empirical, scientific evidence.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: No: 24, Yes: 10

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: The fine-tuning argument suggests the precise mathematical constants of the universe are too improbable to be accidental, making an intelligent designer a rationally defensible explanation for our existence.
• No: The 'God of the Gaps' has historically shrunk as scientific understanding of natural laws, evolution, and cosmology expands, leaving no empirical necessity for a supernatural interventionist.