The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
14 Points

A God must have created the universe.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/7/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 749 times Debate No: 71287
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)




This is a debate reagrding the concept of there being an omnipotent creator who made this world and this universe versus the universe creating itself. We will not be arguing over the nature of this God and this God does not necessarily belong to any religion(although I will be arguing on behalf of Christianity).


I accept. Pro must show that it cannot be the case that the universe could exist without god. The burden of proof is on pro to show this.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, I will start with a more scientific approach to proving the existence of God. The first thing that I would like to say is that there is no reason why the bulk of the weight in this argument should be on me, just because my opponent says so. The bulk should be evenly distributed and everyone should have an open mind while reading the arguments. Thank you.

Statement #1: A lot of people see God(especially the Christian God who I am arguing for) as contradictory to science but I do not believe that is the case, in fact I think science without some God would be completely illogical. The perfect mathematical language that has been laid out for us must of course be a fundamental feature of the universe(one which humans could not create), a language with numbers could not just be created by a large bang. And that of course is another thing, I believe that the Big Bang theory leaves room for God. It simply states that the universe started from a dimmensionless point and then expanded rapidly and that this universe that we are in is still expanding from this singularity. This must leave room for God for a couple of reasons:
1. Of course you cannot have an acceleration without a force and forces do not create themselves so how did this singularity expand at such a rapid rate. This is very similar to a debate made by Thomas Aquinas, for every event there is a cause to an effect and since an effect could never create itself there must be some sort of God.
2. Where did the singularity come from, did it just create itself too.
I believe that the Big Bang theory makes more sense with a God. I also believe that Christianity leaves room for evolution(although it does contradict certain passages of the Old Testament i personally believe that it is very hard to understand the Old Testament because both age and translation and that it may not have been so literal as it may appear).

Statement #2: My next argument is not necessarily regarding this debate as much but I do believe that it is valid. This argument was made by the philosopher Pascal. Since, you have nothing to lose by being a Christian it is illogical to not do so. Even(hypothetically) if Christianity did not exist it would still give you a better lifestyle and strong moral inspiration and if death is just a numb blackness then you would have lost nothing unless there is an "atheist hell." The very principle of hell makes it worth being a Christian, if you do not believe in Christianity you are being rather arrogant. You are staking eternal life in paradise or hell on your earthly logic. Look at a man named Socrates with me for a moment, I'm sure you've heard of him. He taught Plato and made the statement "I know nothing"(paraphrasing there). The only thing he knew was that he was certain of nothing, because even a man as brilliant as Socrates did not trust himself and his logic enough to make the simplest decisions with it then it is extremely foolish to "gamble" on eternal life.


I will be proposing a couple different ways in which we can have the universe without a god creating it (as just having a single example of how the universe could exist without god falsifies Pro's statement that god must have created the universe. In this round I will only be bringing up my own points, I will save rebuttals for the next round.

Hawking Argument

In this point I will be using an argument that Stephen Hawking made, but formalized[1].

P1) Causes must precede their effects in time
P2) There is no time prior to the beginning of time (the origin of the universe)
C) Therefore, the universe cannot have a cause

P1 is validated through the principals of causality.
P2 is based off of relativity, where time is another dimension of space, and where there is no space there is no time. No space before the big bang means no time before the big bang.

This works under the A-Theory of Time if time is a dimension of space, and therefore under that metaphysical model it is possible that the universe did not have a cause, and therefore was not caused by god.

Krauss Argument

In this point I will be using Krauss' points to show that if the universe has a cause that it does not necessarily need to be god[2].

One discovery in quantum mechanics is that empty space is not really empty, it is bubling with virtual particles that pop in and out of existence. These fluctuations can explain where all the matter/anti-matter/energy in the universe came from[3].

Furthermore, as quantum physics is a field of fluctuations, quantum gravity, if such a thing exists, would almost certainly allow fluctuations as well. Gravity, as we currently understand it, deals with spacetime. If you put these two things together then we would have the ability for spacetime to fluctuate in and out of existence.

This allows for space, time, matter, anti-matter, energy etc. to come out of nothing without the need of god, only the need of quantum mechanics.

Tenseless Cosmological Argument

In this point I will be showing that under the B-Theory of Time that god cannot have created the universe.

P1) If God created the universe, the universe has a cause.
P2) The universe can only have a cause if tensed facts exist.
P3) Tensed facts do not exist.
C1) The universe does not have a cause (follows from P2 and P3).
C2) God did not create the universe (follows from P1 and C1).

Defense of Premise 1:
I am sure that this does not need much for explanation. If God created the universe, the logically god is the cause and the universe is the effect.

Defense of Premise 2:
The principals of causality require for there to be a movement of time. A before the effect, an after the cause, etc. This requires tensed facts.
This point is seemingly agreed upon by all time theorists, even William Lane Craig[4].

Defense of Premise 3:
To defend premise 3 I will be proposing that the most probable theory of time is the B-Theory of Time.
Effects like relativity and time dialation support the B-Theory of Time while refuting the A-Theory of Time (the A-Theory of Time is the theory of time that allows tensed facts to exist).

Further support for this premise comes from recent experiments in quantum mechanics. Under the B-Theory of Time, the progression of time is an illusion, and time does not really pass. If one were to have "god view", a view of the universe from outside of it, the universe would appear static.
A recent study has shown that the progress of time is an illusion caused from quantum entanglement, and that if you did have "god view" that the universe would actually appear static[5].


I have shown ways in which it is possible that god does not have to have created the universe.

I will make my rebbutals next round. Good luck to Pro.


Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for a very interesting argument on the part of SNP1.

I will now bring up the argument that many people have made before me, the argument that this world(and this universe in general) is simply too complex to be created by random chance, even with several scientific theories which would choose to show otherwhise(Evolution for example gives us a degree of explanation of the biological complexity all around us but only a degree). Evolution had brought us to where we are today, it has given us several special traits which have helped us survive but there are so many things that cannot be caused by mere evolution. For example, here are several things which must have existed for the human body to survive long enough to produce offspring and continue life:
1. Eyes
2. Blood
3. Heart
4. Reproductive system
5. Arms
6. Legs
7. Lungs
8. Mouths
9. Bladder
10. Liver
11. Pancreas(modern humanity can live without one but in its primitive state we would not have a chance)
12. Cells
13. Kidney(same case as pancreas)
14. Bones
15. Nerves
16. Skin
17. Brain
18. Immune system
19. Muscles

The fact that we have all of these things is incredible. Imagine that there is a o.1 percent chance of these things being created by random chance(which I personally think is a favorable percentage for the con). The chances of the human body being that perfect is one in 262,144,000 and of course the human body is exponentially more complex that that. Look at the rib cage(like a prison around our heart, our most vital organ, coincidence?), or our fingers and fingernails(perfect for everyday life, using and holding tools), think of our eyes(there are twelve parts to the eye that are explicit for our sight), think of our ears, how we have senses which can transmit information to our brains. It is all so amazing. Evolution could not have created ears or fingers, we could not have said "I wish I could hear" and suddenly be able to hear or gain other features. No, these features were innate, given to us since the very creation of time. The body is amazing. Now, look at the circumstances which the human body is in. We have just the right combination of oxygen in the air, just the perfect climate for our survival, animals and plants to give us food, water which we could not live without, the perfect amount of gravity, a strong nuclear force, the perfect strength of the electromagnetic force. You cannot honestly say that this all happened. The human body is lets say, one in a trillion, thats pretty conservative if you ask me. So, a body which is one in a trillion in an environment where if gravity were just a little stronger or a little weaker we could not survive, this perfect body the perfect distance from a star which is the perfect size. If this world was created by random chance, it is a mathematical anamoly which is almost unthinkable. Now, I will add to my list of amazing things about the body, including things about the universe around us.
20. Correct amount of oxygen
21. Perfect gravity
22. Perfect electromagnetism
23. The sun
24. Water
25. Strong nuclear force
26. Ears
27. Fingers
28. Fingernails
29. Tongue
30. Stomach
31. Spine
32. Nose
33. The sheer quantity of elements
34. The ability of electrons to react with other elements
35. Plants
36. Animals
37. Ribcage
38. Feet
These are just things I thought of off the top of my head, there are hundreds more. The chances of this universe being this perfect is one in 137,438,953,472,000. I am going to make these numbers relateable to your life. You have about a one in 175 million chance of winnning the lottery. These chances are equal to winning the lottery 785,365 times in a row. If you won the lottery 785,000 times in a row would you shrug and think of it as random chance or would you think some one had hacked or messed with the system. Remember my number estimates were rather conservative.

Now a couple of questions about the Big Bang theory which, not suprisingly came up in my opponents arguments. Using the Big Bang theory in its present form as a theory which can explain all of the universe's creation seems somewhat rushed. The theory was many bugs to work out, it would be like physicists trying to draw realistic conclusions from Quantum Mechanics in 1920. It would not work very well since we have so far to go, science is by its nature contingent. It is foolish of us to think we are at the height of physics currently, people in the late 19th century thought the same thing. Every modern man must realize that in one-hundred years his beliefs and work will be thought foolish and stupid. Science is always changing, morphed constantly and therefore we cannot always trust it. Christianity is not morphed and changed(its idealogy is but its core beliefs are not), we can trust Christianity much more than we can trust our current views of science. So here are some arguments against the Big Bang theory, I am not saying that it is useless but rather that it has so many bugs to be worked out, in the future it may very well work:
1. It violates the First Law of Thermodynamics
2. It violates Relativity, Hawking and others have based their theories and ways of explaining the Big Bang on relativity and yet their theory breaks one of Relativity's basic statements. Since the Big Bang accelerated faster than the speed of light, it violates Relativity and therefore it is illogical to try and explain time and space with Relativistic concepts because obviously the theory does not work on something as complex as the Big Bang.
3. It defies the Law of Entropy.
4. New evidence argues that the Universe is not expanding at all(I don't want to go in depth, I'm running out of characterds but I'll post the link below my arguments) which if that is true defintely proves the Big Bang theory wrong.
5. It assumes nothing creates everything.
6. What created the Singularity or did it just exist?
7. What force caused the Big Bang to occur?
8. The Big Bang theory must produce a fair amount of Lithium but as researchers are now noticing, the universe has not produced near as much as predicted and older stars(which should have more) have less than one tenth of what is predicted.
Thank you to everyone reading, good luck to SNP1.

Link I promised:


Round 2 Argument 1

These points address the standard version of the Big Bang. None of my arguments in my round 2 use that model, they do not have the same problems as this.

Round 2 Argument 2

There are 2 problems here. First, it does not deal with knowledge (which is the purpose of this debate). Second, this is a false dichodomy.
Pro assumes here that there are only 2 religious positions, either Christianity or atheism.
The reason this is flawed is because there are an infinite amount of possible gods. Not only this, but there are also a lot of denominations of certain religions which have slight variations, including how to go to heaven.

So, if there are an infinite amount of possible gods and an infinite amount of ways to go to heaven (if there is a heaven) then it would logically follow that everyone would have about an equal chance of going to heaven.

Not only that, but changing belief requires evidence. For example, if I pointed a gun at your head and told you that you would die if you didn't start believing in the invisible elephant that is right in front of you that I will kill you. The odds are the same with Pascal's Wager, good outcomes for belief and bad outcomes for doubt. Now, will you honestly believe in this invisible elephant? No, it is not possible for one to simply believe. One needs evidence to change their disposition.

Round 3 Argument 1

Here, Pro argues for Intelligent Design by proposing there is infinite complexity.
Pro makes a common mistake that humans were a goal of evolution. It does not matter what the chances of humans evolving were as evolution does not have an end goal.

Now, these things can be explained through evolution. As Pro listed too many things to address all the things, so I will simply list links to address all the things he listed (so that I do not run out of character space just refuting all of these points).
Circulatory system-
Human skin-
Immune system-

And even if evolution of Earth is false, which it probably isn't, that does not rule out Panspermia.

Round 3 Argument 2

Here is where Pro argues for teleology. The problem is that teleology actually supports naturalism as one would not expect life to exist where it was not permitted under naturalism.
Video to the side for further explanation.

Teleology also assumes that the universe could be any other way, that there isn't a multiverse, and that there is only 1 dimension (instead of 2 which would allow for every possible past, present, and future to exist at once).

Round 3 Pro's Rebuttals

First Law of Thermodynamics:
The Tenselss argument that I made makes it so the universe never began, so there is no problem there. Besides, this issue is avoided under a zero energy universe(as the net energy would not have changed, just like how 1+(-1)=0), and that is the type of universe that we live in.

Space expanding does not violate relativity as relativity deals with motion, but the universe is not in motion, it is expanding.

Entropy (2nd law of Thermodynaics):
This is solved due to the expanding universe creating pockets of equalibrium and the universe's expansion changing the point of equalibrium.

Not expanding universe:
This does not refute the tenseless argument that I made. Also, the evidence that you suggested does not conclusively show that the universe is not expanding. The evidence for the expanding universe is much more conclusive. More tests would have to be done before confirming this, especially since the actual abstract of the paper says,
"We do not claim that the consistency of the adopted model with SB data is sufficient by itself to confirm what would be a radical transformation in our understanding of the cosmos. However, we believe this result is more than sufficient reason to examine this combination of hypotheses further."

Nothing creates everything:
I addressed this issue in my round 2, and you have not yet refuted any of my premises or arguments.

The singularity would not be an issue under the Krauss Argument and Tenseless argument (as it would be non-existent), and the Hawking argument explains why there doesn't need to be a cause. This poses no problem.

Force behind the Big Bang:
I addressed this in my second round. In 2 of the 3 arguments there would not need to be a force (in fact, there could not be a force) behind the big bang. In the other, quantum physics explains it.

More recent findings showed that there isn't actually a lithium problem in the universe. Also, this would not impact the tenseless argument I made in round 2.


I have addressed all of Pro's arguments and rebuttals, he has not yet addressed the actual arguments that I proposed in my second round.
Debate Round No. 3


Philosophy123 forfeited this round.


Arguments extended
Debate Round No. 4


Philosophy123 forfeited this round.


Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Berend 1 year ago
This will be very interesting.
Posted by Philosophy123 1 year ago
Okay, thank you for the clarification. I am more than happy to prove that God MUST have created the universe.
Posted by JP_Hatecraft 1 year ago
Pro, as this is your first debate I understand why you don't see that you have the burden of the proof. But there is a reason for this. In order to win this debate you must prove, "A God must have created the universe.", whereas the Con may either prove that a God did not, or that both are possible. Thus the burden of the proof is yours.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro forfeited the majority of the debate, which is hardly acceptable conduct in any debate setting whatsoever. Con did not forfeit any round, and graciously extended their arguments. Therefore, conduct to Con. | Spelling & Grammar: Neither side made any major grammatical or spelling errors. S&G tied. | Arguments: Statement 1 of Pro's was regarding the alleged "impossibility" of the Big Bang expansion, which was falsified by Con's contentions without need for refutation. The Hawking argument questions the very possibility of causality, and the TCA was merely refuting the arguments for God (especially since God relies on ad hoc proclamations). Pro was unable to address these due to their FF. | Sources: Pro used one unreliable source, whereas Con used extensive citations, such as the Scientific American. | 6 points to Con. | As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited the final round which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. S&G - Tie. Both had proper spelling and grammar throughout the debate. Arguments - Con. Both sides argued wonderfully up until Pro's forfeit to be honest. However, there were some things that tipped the scale in favor of Con. It goes without saying that Pro failed to maintain his BOP by forfeiting the final round, furthermore, Pro failed to rebut a majority of Con's arguments from R2 (as well as leaving all of Con's R3 arguments to go standing unchallenged). As Pro, you should never drop or fail to rebut Con's arguments, it's your burden to overcome each challenge raised by Con. In failing to do so, Con wins arguments. Sources - Con. While both utilized sources in this debate, I found Con's to be greater in both quality and quantity. Ultimately, Con wins these points for that reason. *I must say, this was an excellent debate up until Pro's forfeit. I'd love to see a rematch someti
Vote Placed by Berend 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by Wylted 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit