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

Arguments for existence of a supernatural creator to the universe.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 6/16/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 652 times Debate No: 34816
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




I have the following arguments:

Argument from holy praise:

1) Our sense of objective praise includes a subsection of holiness.
2) We are justified to believe in objective praise.
3) It doesn't make sense to accept the rest of objective praise but exclude our sense of holy praise.
4) Holy praise needs a supernatural origin and reality (ie. Creator)

Modified cosmological argument.

1) The universe seems to have a beginning both based on scientific and philosophical evidence.
2) To say time zero didn't need an ontological preceding cause begs the question, if all of time has a cause, then why special plead time zero to not have one?
3) Therefore it seems time zero must have had a cause.
4) That cause must be originally beyond time.
5) It seems it's more plausible it's a personal creator then a material cause, because a material cause doesn't seem to have the ability to create something like time at a point when time doesn't exist.

Argument from perpetual identity:

1) We are justified in believing we have a perpetual identity (what this means, is that no matter how much we changed, we are still the same person)
2) To be justified in this belief is not possible from naturalism perspective and rather is justified only from the perspective that we witness/know about a soul whether we realize it or not.
3) An existence of a soul proves a supernatural creator.

Argument from objective morality

1) Objective morality can be delusional from the naturalism perspective.
2) We cannot know it's not delusional from naturalism perspective.
3) We do know it's not delusional.
4) This implies we inwardly know (whether we realize it or not) that naturalism is not true.

Argument from consciousness and paradox of evolution explanation:

1) There must be a step between what is termed non-consciousness and consciousness.
2) If naturalism is true, there must be also many steps between non-consciousness and consciousness.
3) The step necessary from non-consciousness to consciousness thus cannot be explained by evolution naturalism wise.

Argument from colours:

1) If naturalism is true, there must be a step between non-colour to colour perception.
2) If naturalism is true, there must be also many steps between non-colour to colour perception.
3) Therefore naturalism cannot be true.

I pose these arguments to see if there is a good refutation towards them. Not really trying to convince people by them.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


OK I guess since there was no response other than I accept, I'm just going to elaborate on the arguments.

As for the first one, it means we over all have a concept of praise ranging from mundane to goodness to honor to exaltedness to holiness. While I do believe all praise points to a supernatural basis, I feel when it comes to holiness, it's more clear that it manifests a supernatural entity. It doesn't make sense to say most of our concept of praise is based on truth about the human nature, but the holy subsection of praise, is of a whole false nature. This because the same sense that we believe in praise in general has also the concept of a holy praise.

The cosmological argument needs not much elaboration except maybe about the philosophical aspect of why the universe needs a beginning. Here is one argument.

An effect requires a cause by definition.
A series of effects is an effect.
An infinite series of effects is an effect.
An infinite series of effects paradoxically by definition implies no first and requires a first cause.
It's therefore a contradiction and proven false.

As for scientific, I'm no expert, but it's something like how if you had an infinite past, by now, the universe would be totally in darkness, without stars, planets, etc...this because of how the universe tends to develop over time. That is why it is believed at one point in time there will be no more life in the universe if the universe run's it's natural state. I don't know the details so I'm not going to emphasize on the science neither am I going to appeal to authority for conclusive proof for the argument as that would a fallacy. I'm just throwing it out there to somewhat strengthen the argument.

As for why morality could be delusional from naturalism perspective. It's quite simply manifest when you think about it. Primitive social beings have a tendency to follow the praise of their society and also follow leaders and their myths. Our morality would have developed in conjugation with mythology. No doubt some of the morals would be more universal or widespread, but this in no way, makes them objective. It's rather has to do with the fact of how it benefits humans. Universal morals would not prove them to be objective. Exactly when did we go from naturalism perspective from subjective morality to objective morality. We didn't even always have books. We didn't come up with a philosophy through pure reasoning and pure vision of goodness with regards to every subject. When did the concept of objective morality take it's place in a human mind, as opposed, to a concept that is there simply because of natural selection and it's help in developing society? If we always needed to learn morals from elders or we looked towards society consensus in general, when did human nature ever come up with an objective sense of what is right or wrong? This along the fact just by evolution, it can have different paths, makes it the last not knowable if the path it took was that of an objective morality. Universal morals if they do exist, will again, not prove objective morality. Therefore if we are sure about morality, we should be certain that naturalism is not true.

As for the two arguments against evolution, it mainly has to do with this paradox that few people actually realize exists. Sure perhaps tons of things could evolve through evolution in theory and it hasn't been proven otherwise, but that is not to say everything can be explained by it. As for colours and the complex state of having a "spirit" in the machine (this metaphorical, I'm not referring to ethereal existence), does require many mutations and very complex relationship between those many mutations. Yet at that same time, there has to be a step between them. There has to be a step where it goes from this to that. Now the complexity in such a stage leads to the paradox, that it needs also so many steps. This is basically the paradox that seems to me to prove a supernatural agent in evolution or creation.


The_Pale_Orc forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


I was hoping for an attempt of a refutation. I will go into detail about the perpetual identity which I forgot to go into details about. Basically I believe this vision of the self and others, being the same person as they are, despite changing is, is innate. However, I feel this belief will never be justified from perspective of naturalism. This is because it would be a concept developed by natural chemicals with no substance behind it, but rather, an experience and vision created because it was advantageous. In fact the same is true of identity in general. The concept of the self would be created not because it has an substance to back it up but rather it would be due to it being advantageous. The same is true of freewill which is a major aspect of the self. The substance believed by many cultures and societies to back on the concept of the self and identity, is the soul. I feel were are justified in belief in perpetual identity therefore feel this proves the supernatural existence which implies a supernatural creator.


The_Pale_Orc forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


MysticLink forfeited this round.


The_Pale_Orc forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


MysticLink forfeited this round.


The_Pale_Orc forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 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 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: FF on both, but pro made a case.