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

Everything is a result of chance and there is a robust illusion that God exists.

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/19/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 109 times Debate No: 97169
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




The topic of this debate is that simultaneously everything is a direct result of random chance and there is a robust illusion that God exists. I will be arguing against the topic. Everyone please remember to keep calm and carry on... and to be polite.

If everything is a direct result of random chance, for every detail of an illusion, it is a direct result of random chance that that detail doesn't destroy or prevent the illusion. The complexity of the illusion considered, the illusion wouldn't be both robust and not prevented. By this view, any logic or proof against this is also a result of random chance and could have been anything else instead, For a rebuttal to be precisely fit to disprove the idea that said illusion cannot occur from random chance, it has to have been caused by a means other than random chance, as random chance simply creates random noise, as consistently order and complexity to the observer, except by complete random chance, so with a tiny probability. So, a rebuttal that disproves my statement would prove that it is not the case that everything is a direct result of random chance.

A reason why random chance can't create as much order and complexity to the observer as the observer experiences is because there are literally trillions of alternate things it could have created that are not that very specific case, so it is very unlikely that random chance would create the order and complexity the observer experiences. Also, if everything is caused by random chance, so is the answer to "What caused the universe?", which could have been anything. The best bet on the pro's side of the argument appears to be that random chance has hidden the solution of why and how everything is a direct result of random chance and why and how it randomly deceived us otherwise, but that still lacks a reason to believe it.

Ultimately, the question to ask is: Which is more likely, random chance created the illusion that it is not the creator or an intelligent creator created the illusion that they don't exist?


Just so you know nobody believes that every second they live and every outcome of those moment is completely random. nobody believes that one second you could be starving in a street or ally and another you are rich living in a mansion. not even the most extreme atheists believe that EVERYTHING is up to chance, because that simple isn't how the universe works. Atheists may believe that the universe is random in most of the senses,depending on the exact context or situation. Atheists obviously don't believe that there are any gods who created and are guiding the universe, so it's unlikely that they believe the universe was made or exists with purpose, aim, or reason. Atheists don't dispute that there are patterns in the universe, though, and even in truly random sets like sequences of numbers patterns will emerge. The existence of patterns does not contradict the existence of randomness. The universe can exist and progress for random reasons and in random directions, and still understand that the universe functions under certain principals like physics or math, natural laws which may or may not favor particular outcomes and sometimes, those outcomes may be random for all practical intents and purposes. so to answer your question, with the evidence we have it is far more likely the universe was created and that we exist by chance, but that doesn't mean everything is random.
Debate Round No. 1


Chance begets chance, not order, and the "illusion" of a god is clearly evident of something intentionally creating that "illusion". If everything is created without intent, everything was created by chance. If everything was created by chance, how did order emerge, and more importantly, why does it look like a god practically wrote their name on the universe saying "I made this"?

If you see a well-written book, you know it was written by something intelligent. In the same way, we know that something intelligent made the universe because they put their mark all over it and it's clearly designed. If you saw a spaceship with a natural explanation (meaning it was made by nature and not even by people or their machines), you know the excuse that nature made it is a decoy. The real reason the spaceship exists is because something intelligent made it. The same is true of the universe. Something as complicated and grand as this universe appears like it must have been designed by a genius. This genius must be responsible for the decoy which is the illusion the universe was created purely naturally. To argue otherwise is insanity; it's like saying this computer is natural, even if every scientist and computer scientist believed it to be; they would all be wrong, no matter where the fake evidence points.

However, regardless, it is still not true that everything is a direct result of random chance, but even if it was an indirect result, there would be no order emerging except by random chance and there are so many more things that can happen randomly, which look random then things that happen randomly which look clearly designed, so if everything was an indirect result of random chance, it would look random, not clearly designed.

You may say, "Thing's could have only looked designed", but by what odds? Things could have only looked any way, so they would look a way that's far more likely, instead; they would look like they happened by chance. If the universe was natural, it wouldn't look clearly artificial. It's a no brainer, really.

So, in conclusion, the universe was not a result of direct or indirect random chance and the topic is true.


The simple illusion of god is not a universal construct, the concept of a higher power was not given to us by the universe, religion is simply something that gives people an excuse to believe in the things we can"t prove. Therefor the concept of god is not an illusion of the universe, god is an illusion of man. You see, the core of your argument is that the universe is a product of a higher power, your reasoning for this is: how can the universe have constructed its self with order if it is a product of random chance? Before I answer your question allow me to point something out.

Because you don"t understand how this is possible, you explain it with god, this proves that the bases of your explanation of god is a product of your ignorance and proves that the giant "I made this" you are talking about is the real allusion. You haven"t given any proof of god; you have simply asked "If everything is created without intent, everything was created by chance. If everything was created by chance, how did order emerge," and because you don"t have the answer to that question you can"t make sense of reality and explain it by calming that god did it. This proves that a universe were god is an illusion is not all that unlikely since you live in a universe were this is the case

Now back to your question "If everything is created without intent, everything was created by chance. If everything was created by chance, how did order emerge?" Actually that is a fair question. Lucky for you I have an answer to that question.

In quantum physics there is something called multiverse theory: in a nut shell, describes how our universe is one of many. Anytime an uncontrollable force or unforeseeable outcome acts on our universe, our universe splits into many different universes each one were something different happened. So let"s start at the beginning, what were the odds that a universe exists? It doesn"t matter if the odds are 0.001^100,000,000,000 because multiverse theory explains how every single one of those out comes will happen there for our universe being formed is 100% likely. Now what are the odds that a universe would be formed with an order to how it functions? Still 100% what are odds of earth being created? Still 100% what are the odds you were born? 100% what are the odds you were born in a universe with order, an earth, and religion? 100% you see the universe is governed by chance, it just so happens, that chance is always going to be 100%. So to answer your question the chances of this universe being formed the way it is simply by chance, is 100%

You are simply misunderstanding the concept of a random universe.

So, in conclusion, just because you don"t know the answer doesn"t mean god did it.
Debate Round No. 2


So, you're saying that the clear appearance of design in the universe does not exist? Because it would not be expected to be there without a god or simulator. You're saying the fine-tuning of the universe isn't there? Really?

It's because I do understand how the appearance of design is possible that I explain it with a god or simulator. Anyone not actively trying to convince themselves otherwise can see that an intelligent being is the most reasonable explanation for the universe. It takes intelligence and intent to make such a high quality universe. Quality doesn't just randomly appear out of chance.

Wait, you're saying that nature can create an illusion without even having a brain or mind to do so, without someone setting it all up to do so? Do you hear yourself?

I asked how order emerged so rational people could realise that, by far, the best explanation is that an intelligent being is behind it. By the way, I'm not sure you won't find a convincing rebuttal; if you do, it could be part of the illusion that a god or simulator created that they're not real.

So, if there was a spaceship, how might it have emerged? "Oh, it might have grown as a plant?". Do you see how unrealistic that would be? "It must have been designed by something intelligent" is not at all unreasonable, and so too is the case with the universe.

A universe where there is an illusion of a god is not at all unlikely. For that universe to exist purely by chance, however, is an assumption rational people are not willing to make.

Which is more likely, that you're in an incredibly rare universe that happened by chance or that arm pulling excuse of multiverses making this universe exist is a decoy made by a god or simulator? I believe the god or simulator of this universe likes to make monkeys out of us by making us believe that a roll of the dice is responsible for the exact opposite of a roll of the dice and does a very good job, indeed.

There needs to be someone that designed something. If the universe was randomly generated, the generator must have been designed. If the generator was randomly generated, the generator for that must have been designed. It's either that or a god or simulator fabricated that logic. To say otherwise is like saying, "Hey, I found this coherent and impressive website online that emerged purely by chance". It's a matter of common sense. Please be more realistic.

Regardless, the conclusion is that the topic, which argues that the universe was made by chance, is false.


Okay let"s examine your theory for a second. Your saying that an intelligent creator has created the universe, and we know this to be true because the universe could not have been created simply by chance. I then disproved that theory through quantum physics. And you say that the proof I have against your theory can simply be an allusion created by the intelligent creator you speak of"

So let me get this straight, god exists because our universe can"t be based off of multiverse theory because multiverse theory is an allusion set forth by god.

You are telling me that your theory is right, because my theory is wrong, because your theory is right?

"I'm not sure you won't find a convincing rebuttal; if you do, it could be part of the illusion that a god or simulator created that they're not real."

Are you hearing this? Your admitting that your defense against my argument only works if we assume that you are right

"if there was a spaceship, how might it have emerged? "Oh, it might have grown as a plant?"

"Hey, I found this coherent and impressive website online that emerged purely by chance".

You"re just making a fool out of yourself. All of your examples are of someone foolishly denying that things we know to be made by intelligence were made naturally, and you are comparing it to someone denying that the universe was made from intelligence. The problem with this comparison is that we know a website was made by intelligence but you have still failed to prove that the universe was made by intelligence.

You have done literally nothing to prove that your theory is correct. All you have done is say that if your theory is correct my theory could simply be an illusion. So cut the crap and let"s see your scientific evidence, please I"m dying to see it, oh wait! You said yourself that any science I throw at you could be an illusion so I guess it goes both ways doesn"t it. Which means that anything you say to prove your theory right could just be an illusion too. So that means you can"t prove your theory right, which means you ARE simply blindly fallowing what you believe in. which proves that the theory you have is simply just an illusion created to rationalize your own beliefs.

Farther more if you are saying that multiverse theory is just an illusion than you are saying that the physics behind that theory are an allusion, if you believe that science is an allusion than you are claiming that the science we have discovered so far, the science and roles and order you yourself pointed out are not real and therefor the universe truly doesn"t run on order at all.

In conclusion You"re not arguing! Or debating! You are simply assuming that your theory is true and since you believe your theory is true, you assume anything that goes against your theory is simply a part of the allusion, that"s not going to fly. you have denied yourself all scientific influence and therefor have denied any knowledge we know as the human race, yet your argument is based upon the universe as we know it being created. If you are to accept that the universe was created you must accept science and you have not, you have rejected it simply because it goes against what you believe. That"s not an argument, that"s cowardice, your hiding behind the idea that if you are right than you can deny anything I say, therefore you can never be proven wrong. Except I just did" so obviously there is no allusion, only the one inside your head.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by SpelunkingSamurai 2 weeks ago
*Con, not Pro. Whoops.
Posted by SpelunkingSamurai 2 weeks ago
I wanted to accept this argument to debate on behalf of the 'everything is a result of chance' side, but Pro has tacked on a second part to the topic that makes it a kind of loaded question and gives him an unfair advantage. A lot of people may believe that everything is a result of chance, but they're not always going to believe that there is a robust illusion that god exists. In fact, it's going to mainly be atheists who believe that everything is a result of a chance, and religious people who believe that there at least appears to be some kind of god that exists. I personally don't think there's a robust illusion that god exists. You're only going to see that illusion if you're already buying into religious arguments like 'life is too complex to have been created by chance' and 'something can't come from nothing'. And if you're already buying into those, are you really going to think everything is a result of chance?

Pro has worded this argument in such a way to shift the balance in his favour. I'd debate about the idea of chance, but not this.
No votes have been placed for this debate.