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

A Supreme Being Can Rationally Exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/25/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 640 times Debate No: 68897
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




A Supreme Being, by definition, is a sentient creature of high-level intelligence that exercises physical control over the universe. By the basic laws of Charles Darwin's evolutionary concept, the fact that a living being existed before the dawn of genetic evolution, in unfavorable conditions (according to quantum physics), is impossible. No creature could possibly have the genetic and evolutionary requirements for such metaphysical devices. In 1927, Georges Lemaitre proposed the Big Bang theory, and it was confirmed to be possible by Edwin Hubble in 1929. The Big Bang theory, now the most scientifically accepted theory for the creation of the universe, proposes a singularity (a gravitational point in spacetime with infinite density and zero volume) acted as a focus for photonic energy that resulted in a de-annihilation that caused a split of particles of matter and antimatter. The formation of these substances could not be caused by a metaphysical sentient creature due to the genetic and biological impossibility of a creature, without usage of advanced technology, to have an ability to warp quantum spacetime itself. Therefore, any argument supporting the existence of a sapient deity is not justifiable by logical means.


You have a valid argument, but just because it does not say in the Bible that the Earth was created by a big bang doesn't mean that it did not happen. There is no reason why science and religion can't agree. In the Bible, it says the Earth was created in 7 days. However, there is no time concept in heaven, which means that the earth could have been created in a millisecond, or 7 billion years. Also, if the big bang theory really did happen, why, and how did life come from it? Well, in the Bible, it says that Adam was created from the ground. Scientists believe that 4.3 billion years ago, chemicals had mixed in the ocean and created DNA that then (after millions of years) became something of an ape. This ape evolved into a cave man that evolved into a human. If there had been no supreme being, how could this happen? There had to have been some force that caused all of this to happen; something that caused the Mars sized planed to crash into the earth and create the Big Bang, something that caused gravity, chemicals, DNA, and even light. How can we exist without a cause? Did something just magically appear that created the universe? Without a supreme being, there is no reason to live. There isn't anything to look forward to after death. Why do you think Hitler killed 7 million Jews in one foul swoop? I believe it's because there was no reason not to do it; no consequence. (that consequence being God) Why would you and I live without a cause?
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.
Debate Round No. 1


That is a rather Deistic argument. Yes, it is greatly possible that a force influenced evolution; yet, my argument is not against religion. My argument is against the existence of a sentient being, not a force, but a human-like creature. That is the basic difference between the Supreme Being and God. God can be conceived in a variety of ways, as an evolutionary force, or a particle. The Supreme Being is conceived as a human-like creature. It is highly implausible that a human-like being existed before the chemical reactions that took place before the Cambrian Explosion. The opposing argument for the "existence of a Supreme Being" has been conceived as "the existence of God is rationally possible", and hence invalid for this debate. I do not seek to find a rationale against the existence of God, I seek to find a rationale against the existence of a Supreme Being.

In addition:

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.


That is where you are flawed in your argument. A supreme being is a higher power, in terms of philosophical conceptions of God. This is a term used by theologians and philosophers including many faiths and religions such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. (Just to name a few) So my arguementis valid in this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Esiar 1 year ago
Of course it can rationally exist.

The cause of the Universe cannot be under the laws of it: Like time, matter, and the laws of it: Making it eternal, immaterial, and omnipotent (Since it/they isn't/aren't under the laws of logic, it/they could do things that we cannot comprehend, but very easy for it/them to comprehend).

It would also make sense to say it is personal.

So it isn't irrational.
Posted by maddy_v_r 1 year ago
I could be the contender. I have many valid arguments on why there is a supreme being. Especially because I'm a Catholic.
Posted by That1User 1 year ago
Would you like me to take this tej? I've done a similiar debate to this "Resolved:Theism is logical" and I won. Do you want me to be your contender or would you like someone else to be your contender?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
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