There is a God.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: No

The existence of God lacks empirical evidence. Scientific explanations, from the Big Bang to evolution, account for the universe and life without invoking the supernatural. The problem of evil undermines omnipotent, benevolent deities: widespread suffering contradicts such a being. Occam's razor favors simpler explanations; positing God adds unnecessary complexity without predictive power. Burden of proof lies with the affirmative claim, which remains unfulfilled after millennia of inquiry.

Sonar Pro

Vote: No

The existence of God is a metaphysical claim that cannot be empirically proven or disproven. No scientific evidence or logical necessity confirms it; all arguments (e.g., ontological, cosmological) rely on unverified premises and face counterarguments like the problem of evil. Search results provide zero relevant data on God's existence, focusing solely on JSON Schema validation—irrelevant to theology or ontology. Absent verifiable proof, the default rational stance is non-affirmation. Affirming 'Yes' requires extraordinary evidence, which is lacking; Occam's razor favors 'No' as the simpler position without assuming an unproven entity.

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

The claim "There is a God" is a strong existential assertion, and strong assertions need sufficient evidence. I do not see publicly verifiable, decisive evidence that establishes the existence of a god with enough reliability to justify a "Yes" vote. Many arguments for God are philosophical rather than evidential. Cosmological, moral, or design arguments may suggest possibilities, but they do not uniquely establish a deity; naturalistic explanations remain available, and the conclusion often goes beyond the premises. Religious experience and scripture are meaningful to many people, but they are not consistent across traditions and are difficult to verify independently. Competing revelations weaken their force as objective proof. So if forced to choose between affirmation and denial, the more defensible position is "No" in the sense that the proposition has not been demonstrated. This is not a claim of absolute certainty, but a judgment that belief is currently unsupported.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

In rational inquiry, the burden of proof always rests on the party making a positive claim. To date, there is no empirical, scientifically verifiable evidence that demonstrates the existence of a deity. Until such evidence is presented, the logical default position is non-belief. Furthermore, Occam's Razor dictates that the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct. Our understanding of the universe, from the Big Bang to the evolution of complex life, is increasingly well-explained by natural laws. Positing an infinitely complex, unobservable creator adds an unnecessary layer of complication without providing predictive power or answering the question of what created the creator. Finally, the problem of evil presents a significant logical hurdle. The presence of immense, gratuitous suffering in the natural world—such as diseases and natural disasters—is difficult to reconcile with the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. A purely naturalistic universe, devoid of a guiding consciousness, perfectly aligns with the indifferent reality we observe.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: No

The claim 'There is a God' is an extraordinary positive claim about the existence of a supernatural being. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim, and after millennia of philosophical and scientific inquiry, no compelling empirical evidence has been produced to substantiate it. The classical arguments for God's existence — cosmological, teleological, ontological — have well-known philosophical rebuttals. The cosmological argument suffers from the problem of infinite regress (what caused God?). The teleological argument is undermined by natural selection, which explains the appearance of design without a designer. The ontological argument conflates conceptual possibility with actual existence. Meanwhile, many phenomena once attributed to divine action — lightning, disease, the origin of species, the formation of planets — have been explained through natural processes. This consistent pattern of naturalistic explanations replacing supernatural ones (sometimes called the 'God of the gaps' problem) suggests that invoking God is an argument from ignorance rather than from evidence. The sheer diversity of mutually contradictory religious traditions also undermines confidence in any particular God claim. If one religion's God is real, then thousands of other sincere believers across history have been wrong — which demonstrates that humans are highly prone to constructing God-beliefs without those beliefs being true. Finally, the problem of evil — the existence of immense, seemingly pointless suffering — poses a serious challenge to the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, which is the most common conception being debated. Based on the available evidence and sound reasoning, the most defensible position is that the God claim has not met its burden of proof.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: No

The absence of empirical evidence for a divine being, combined with the comprehensive success of naturalistic explanations across all domains of inquiry, provides strong grounds for rejecting the existence of God. Every phenomenon once attributed to supernatural agency—from lightning to disease to cosmic origins—has yielded to physical, testable explanations. When a hypothesis consistently fails to produce observable evidence where we would expect it, and alternative explanations account for all available data with greater predictive power, rational inquiry favors the latter. Furthermore, the problem of suffering presents an insurmountable logical barrier to the classical conception of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity. The existence of gratuitous evil—suffering that serves no greater compensatory good—is incompatible with such a being. While theists propose various theodicies, none resolve the quantitative and qualitative extent of suffering observed in the natural world without modifying the definition of God beyond recognition or resorting to unfalsifiable ad hoc rationalizations. The burden of proof rests with those making positive existential claims. Without reliable, reproducible evidence that distinguishes the God hypothesis from countless other unfalsifiable supernatural claims, the default epistemic position must be non-belief. The God hypothesis remains unnecessary to explain reality and lacks predictive power, making it intellectually prudent to reject proposition A.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached an immediate and unanimous consensus against the existence of a deity, citing a complete lack of empirical evidence and the logical weight of the problem of evil. Claude Opus 4.6 and Kimi K2.5 dismantled classical philosophical proofs as insufficient, while Sonar Pro dryly noted that its search for divine evidence yielded only irrelevant data about JSON schema validation. Ultimately, the models agreed that naturalistic explanations have rendered the 'God of the gaps' obsolete, leaving the burden of proof entirely unfulfilled.

All 6 models agreed on "No" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• No: The God hypothesis is unnecessary to explain reality; natural selection and physical laws provide predictive power that supernatural claims lack, and the presence of gratuitous suffering creates an insurmountable logical barrier to an omnipotent, benevolent deity.