A Supreme Being Can Rationally Exist
Debate Rounds (2)
If there was no God, all a human being would be is a large group of atoms coming together to create matter. If a human is just matter, why would we matter? That's like saying," a group of particles called Howard Hughes created an aircraft called The Hercules." That would make no sense. I'm just saying that if there is no God then there would be no reason to live.
A Supreme Being in existence is in violation of the laws of physics. One may argue that the laws of physics and science are at constant evolution in finding the truth, but the existence of such a sentient creature violates even Robert Lanza's theory of a biocentric universe. The Big Bang began in a singularity, a point with infinite density and zero volume; that can be the definition of God, but not a Supreme Being, for that point in spacetime was not a sentient creature. Such points that act as a focus in spacetime really do exist in the universe.
In addition, by general definition, a Supreme Being is an omniscient/omnipotent being who acts as a life form and, in addition to creating the universe, watches over it. The metaphors in the Bible have been correctly pointed out in the second argument's first round, but I do not challenge the Bible. The Bible's metaphoric claims do not point to a Supreme Being, they point to God. The existence of a Supreme Being is therefore hardly acceptable by any branch of modern or future science.
Ethical violation due to the nonexistence of a Supreme Being does not affect the cosmo-scientific balance of the universe; the universe does not exist because of human emotions and ethics, it exists because of a balance of energies. This balance of energies can be considered God, but not the Supreme Being.
Conclusion: While the existence of a binding entanglement, or a focus of creation, can be considered God, a Supreme Being, in his/her form of a human-like intelligent life-form with omnipotent control over the creative powers of the universe, has no rationale for his/her existence.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Both side made deeply flawed arguments, but Con's was slightly better. Reasonable conduct and format for both sides and neither used a single source. Arguments go to Con by a very slight margin
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.