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

A single god that created existence, and everything, is impossible.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 700 times Debate No: 72157
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Let me start by saying that by existence I include both our universe, and everything (potentially) outside it.

It is by logical reasoning, that it is impossible for there to be non-existence, then for an existing body to initiate existence. As that is breaching the law of the previous premise.

Ie. for there to be nothing existing, then there to be something existing, through the actions of a body that already exists.

Therefore, a 'god' is not allowed, logically to be beyond the realms, and undeniable truths of existence and non-existence. Or otherwise known as yes and no. A god would therefore either exist before creating our world, or doesn't exist at all, and we have always existed.

Because, if he existed before existence, then he did not create existence, as he existed before it. So therefore, a god cannot be the creator of all existence.

Taking this natural truth into account, existence must transcend our creator (if we have one). As he must exist in order to create us. Therefore, he cannot be the creator of EVERYTHING. As otherwise he would be the creator of himself, and thus cause a paradox of causation and initiation.

So, since he cannot be the creator of everything. That must mean that there is ultimately no creator, as if there were, who created the ultimate creator. and thus there is another return of the previously stated paradox.

Now since the paradox cannot occur, we must assume that there is only ever existence, and nothing initiated the existence of EVERYTHING (both inside and outside our universe).

Now, It must be said however, that a creator is compatible with this model, as long as the creator is the creator of our universe only, and not necessarily everything. And our universe is enclosed within the ether of another world. Rather like a complex simulation.

We could potentially, if we had large enough computing power, create a simulation that has sentient beings which think for themselves and learn. making ourselves "gods" of their simulated world. And to their eyes, the creator of everything. But only in fact the creator of their simulation.

Therefore, we could either be the only existing universe that has always existed. Or we are within another universe, and have been created by a "god", rather like a simulation. But this god only created us, and not himself.

As a somewhat irrelevant side note....

Since there is no ULTIMATE creator, we have two options, either non-existence is infinite, or existence is infinite.

We can by default, and personal observation assume that non-existence being infinite is impossible, considering you and I exist. Therefore existence must be infinite.

Try and imagine non-existence, its impossible really. huh. Quite mind boggling.


Hello! I appreciate the challenge! Now, I myself do not believe in god but, I do not doubt the possibility of a higher power.

Above is a link to an article that I will be using as a reference and in it`s last paragraph, it answers the question of "Who Created God?" which I assume is what your main question is.

"God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time or within multiple dimensions of time. Although it is possible that the universe itself is eternal, eliminating the need for its creation, observational evidence contradicts this hypothesis, since the universe began to exist a finite ~13.8 billion years ago. The only possible escape for the atheist is the invention of a kind of super universe, which can never be confirmed experimentally."
Debate Round No. 1


One thing I dislike about that statement, is the null hypothesis is in favour of a god existing. From observations of or universe, the lack of sentient life, and our current scientific reasoning. I would assume it would be, by default, more correct to assume their is no god, rather than their is.

To assume their is a god, that brings in a sentiency into the beginning of our universe, when their is no evidence for it. Therefore why should we assume there is a living being. As this isn't proved or suggested by our observations. Surely, the stance should be for the believers to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it is the case. As our observations suggest neither. We should be thus impartial. No?

Furthermore, If god does in fact transcend time of our universe, like the statement says, he must have come into existence somehow, or always existed with time and space. Taking this into account, for him to be omniscient and omnipotent, like many religions claim. Then he must have obtained that knowledge from somewhere. Or it must inbuilt into the fabric of space and time, and have always existed. Rather like a script, code, or mathematical equation for existence.

This I would assume, and the null hypothesis would be that a "god" that is living becomes less and less likely. And the human aspect of a god becomes more unlikely.

The statement says "observational evidence contradicts this hypothesis" regarding the universe being eternal. No it doesn't. All we know is our universe originated from high dense singularity, and expanded, we have no evidence to prove that it existed before this singularity, or began with this singularity. So this statement is also void, as the person who made it obviously has divine insight into the origins of the universe.

"the universe began to exist a finite ~13.8 billion years ago" This is false. it should read "the universe expanded a finite ~13.8 billion years ago". We have know knowledge as to whether it existed or not. As we assume all prior evidence/information to a state before this singularity is unavailable, and or destroyed.

Thus we cannot assume that the universe is finite, or infinite, as the evidence points to neither. It simple proves that our universe as we know it expanded from a point of almost infinite density, by a series of observable natural laws. And obeying natural mathematic laws too.

Regarding the last line of the quote, this Idea is equally, if not more viable than the "god" theory. From our observations of the universe, we can conclude the following:

1. Life is less abundant than non-life,
2. Life most likely arises from the non-living via Abiogenesis.
3. Non-living objects are more common in the universe than living.

Taking these three common and modern scientific 'truths' into account. We should assume that our universe arose from a non-living origin. As the 'living' matter is infinitesimally small, compared to the 'non-living' matter.


God does not follow the rules of our universe since he is outside of our universe. All these arguments that you are stating revolve around rules that we know and have created based on our observations of our universe. Therefor, God would be excluded from these rules and there would be no physical evidence to suggest that he exist.
Debate Round No. 2


There is no evidence to suggest he isn't bound by the rules of our universe, so that argument is equally as invalid, and of course valid as mine.

But surely it would be more true to rely on the laws and rules of our universe, rather than ones defined by a book dated 1000's of years ago.


Of course there is no evidence to suggest that he doesn't follow the rules of our universe. As i said, there never would be any evidence to support his existence if he truly does exist outside of our universe. But the fact is, we will most likely never know whether he is 100% real or not. My claim is that it isn't impossible. It is very possible for a god to exist outside our universe, we just won't know it if he does.

And whether or not it is more reasonable to assume that he isn't real vs that he is real is a matter of opinion, not fact.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
>Futurepresident2048 // Moderation action: Removed<

3 points to Con (arguments). {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: Pro was the only one to give a real argument.}

[*Reason for Removal*] Too generic.
Posted by usernamesareannoying 2 years ago
I would love to debate this, but I have another going on... And I have an exam tomorrow. So I will just stand and watch. Good luck.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by AlternativeDavid 2 years 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: If I were to sum up this debate in one word, I would use "vain". This of course would be the secondary definition: producing no result; useless. This debate had Pro using logic that Con claimed could not be used to understand the concept of a higher power. Pro kept pushing this though, and Con kept dancing around. Nothing actually happened, and we're left in the exact same place we were before... I give conduct to nobody. Neither party stepped out of line. I give spelling and grammar to con. Pro misused "their" way too many times. Neither side gets the points for arguments for the reasons articulated above. I give sources to Neither as well. The reason for this is that while Con had more sources (one vs. zero), Con used his source to make his argument instead of using it to validate the argument or cite where some information was coming from. Overall, this debate was a good premise that I hope can be recreated in the future with more thought put into it.