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

God is real and created the universe

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 529 times Debate No: 107368
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (0)




I will be arguing for the existence of God and that said God created the universe.

First, we will accept as a presupposition that the universe and we ourselves do exist. We will also accept that nothing can be proven 100%. We cannot know ANYTHING 100%. However, we CAN say something is more probable than not probable.

Now I will present my arguments for God.

1. (A) The universe exists. (B) The universe is a physical/finite entity. (C) Everything finite is by definition not infinite (D) Finite things have a beginning (E) Thus, the universe had a beginning
- This argument matches current scientific thought in which the universe is thought to be expanding and therefore to have had a beginning
- If one argues that THIS universe had a beginning, but there are multiverses or other universe that may have existed infinitely, then you would be arguing that the overall universe exists infinitely. This is logically fallible because if the universe existed infinitely before today, we could never get to today. In other words, if infinite 'days' existed before today, we could never get to today.
- So if the universe existed a finite number of days before today, then it had a beginning.

2. IF the universe had a beginning, then something had to have caused it to begin.
-If you will argue that the universe caused itself to begin, I would argue that if the universe did not exist yet, how could it cause itself to begin? This just doesn't even make any sense at all. Something would have to exist to cause something.
- The popular atheist argument now would be that if everything finite has a cause, why doesn't God need a 'cause.' The answer is that God exists outside of time. God created time. Before God created time and space and the universe and everything in it, God just was.

3. If there is no God, then everything in our planet is random. How could the complexity/diversity of everything we see be explained? Do you really believe everything amazing around us is just 'by chance?' Plants, animals, everything is just random chance? All the animals have their own complex set of tools to function in the universe. Where did all this complexity come from? Evolution does not explain everything. The complexity of a cell alone is astonishing. Where did the organization of the cell come from? How did the complexity of the body plans in the animal life organize? Random mutations and natural selection does not answer this sufficiently. And then there is the issue of abiogenesis. And no, I'm not saying "God" has to be the answer to all of these "Gaps." BUT, I do think the amazing complexity of everything point to a mind behind the design.

4. Fine tuning
- This is a common argument as well, but if there is no God, why is Earth conducive to life? The chances that a planet would have all the needed elements for life is too unlikely to be reasonable. Water just happens to expand when frozen to as not to sink and kill the ocean life? The sun just happens to be the right distance from the earth. The moon just happens to be the right distance to block the sun during an eclipse.

5. Consciousness
- Where did it come from? Science has no explanation. How would science even go about studying this entity? Just a point to ponder.

6. Morality
- Why are humans often so altruistic? Oxytocin receptor has been shown to be linked to human empathy. Where did this receptor and hormone come from? By random mutation? How would the DNA code know to 'randomly' create a system where animals act with empathy? Seems too hard to accept.

This is where I will start for now. Looking forward to a fun debate!


The Earth is random correct. If you say that everything has a beginning in your main point then where is God's beginning? All of this is really just happening by chance. Morality isn't based on religion either. Not to stomp on what you believe in of course. I am here to prove that there is not a God. To do that though one must tie down which religion this God is from. We must also keep in mind when religion was established and why it was established. Well religion itself began in the early Mediterranean some time in B.C. Now the purpose for it was to explain the flooding and death. Now that we have evolved more as intellectual people we have things like science to explain things. Religion is mainly used for those who are scared of death. Not only for themselves but lost family members as well. Think about it you can't really poke holes in science when religion doesn't really explain it either.
Debate Round No. 1


Unfortunately, while my opponent clearly disagrees with my premise, he/she has not truly formed counter-arguments to most of my points.

"The Earth is random correct." No, I never said this. It is YOU who needs to prove that it is probably for everything to have formed by chance. My belief is that is highly improbable for the vast complexity of the universe to have formed by chance.

"If you say that everything has a beginning in your main point then where is God's beginning?" I clearly stated that God exists outside of time and space because He created time and space. If God exists outside of time because He created time, then He does not need a beginning. He always was.

"Morality isn't based on religion either. Not to stomp on what you believe in of course." My debate is not about religion. I put forth no arguments related to religion.

"I am here to prove that there is not a God." Are you? God is an unfalsifiable belief. You need to prove that God is not probably to exist. I have not seen you make any arguments yet for this.

"To do that though one must tie down which religion this God is from." No, no we do not. Again, my debate has nothing to do with religion.

"Think about it you can't really poke holes in science when religion doesn't really explain it either." If God created the universe, then that explains the origin of the universe. Can science make any rational explanation for the universe's origin? I have yet to hear one.

I stand by my original arguments.


However you have no backing on the accomplishments of a possible God. And let us take a look of the definition of God (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. You have no evidence saying that there is a God just a couple of analytics on how the world is weird. Which is odd that you know so much of God seeing as you provided no source, evidence, or a specific God. All interpretations of God are based on religion and if you believe in one then it is based on religion. This is all unspecific information to create a one sided argument which can't really stand. If you can give me an example of God's power and what he can do otherwise this your argument means nothing.
Debate Round No. 2


I have set forth an argument that God exists and created the universe. I will define God as the force or entity that created the universe. He exists outside of space and time. He is omniscient and all powerful. He assigns the universe its laws and truths/moralities. Religion is how we as humans serve God here on Earth, but God does not exist only by being defined through the lens of a religion. I could argue for a specific religion's truths, but that would be a different debate altogether, as I've said multiple times.

My opponents argument seems to be mainly that I have not presented any evidence for God. However, in my first argument I presented the logical argument that the only rational explanation for the universe's existence is that it was created by God. This is, as I stated, because it is irrational to state that the universe created itself or that it existed infinitely before today. I also presented the idea that the universe's vast complexity and fine tuning are not compatible with the idea that this all just occurred by chance. My opponent made no counter-arguments to any of these claims.

There is no current theory for how consciousness came to be. This was not commented on by my opponent.

I also showed that empathy has a genetic basis. This would make sense if God programmed our DNA/genetics. I do not see how random mutations could have just chanced on giving us programming for empathy. What is the probability that a bunch of matter would turn dead matter into life and then program it to feel attachment for each other? Yes, attachment helps us survive by working together, but why would any of this come about by chance?

Look around at the universe. Why are we here? The odds of our existence is 0. ZERO. Show me a complex designed system that had no designer. Splash paint on a wall, and get a Mona Lisa? Bash a bunch of matter together and get a highly complex universe with life? Of course not. There is a force behind everything.


My opponent defines God as the force that created the universe. This is extremely one sided in the sense that there must have been a force to create something. However they personifies said force. They believe it has a will. My opponent uses the argument that it is common sense to believe that God created everything. How ever there is something more sensible called science. We have to see the fact presented before us. There was a force that created us by chance and has no will of its own. My opponent also makes close ended statements without any evidence at all to further their arguments. The only reason that this may make sense is my opponents argument against the accidental birth of the universe and the complexity behind it. It is very simple that it is only complex to us. For example trees find it hard to walk. Humanity isn't here to find answers for everything. What seems complex to us is simple to other life. We honestly have little information about the world and much less so to form an opinion like my opponents. To whomever may read this I thank you for your time and patience this was a pretty long debate.

Connor Gresak
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 weeks ago
>Reported vote: DawnBringerRiven// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments consist of logical connections between ideas. Con argues that Pro's arguments are irrelevant as, to put in better words, even if something is logically sound that does not make a premise true. Logically sound arguments can be made against and for God, so how can your argument be true as it only consists of nothing but logical connections with no factual evidence? This is Con's argument and I believe it is more convincing than Pro's subjective interpretations of the world.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both sides. The voter does so to some degree with both, but for Pro, his analysis consists of generalizations about how Pro"s arguments function rather than any specific analysis of the points made. That is not sufficient. (2) The voter appears to be expanding on the arguments Con made as part of this RFD. It"s not clear where Con made the argument that Pro"s points are irrelevant on the basis that logic alone does not suffice as proof. Unless the voter can show where that argument exists in Con"s points in the debate, it may not be used as a means to award points.
Posted by whiteflame 2 weeks ago
>Reported vote: skyward592// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Most of the reasons given were valid.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn"t explain conduct, S&G or sources. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to assess specific arguments presented by both sides in the debate.
Posted by debateprincess88 2 weeks ago
tfroitz1: You bring up some interesting thoughts. I feel there is too much in your comment to reply to in this venue. I think a formal debate between you and I may be necessary if we are really going to hash out everything you said.
Posted by tfroitz1 3 weeks ago
I happen to disagree with all of your points and I will try to give my basic objections shortly. I also would be interested to debate you on this topic in order to elaborate on my objections.

1. I have a problem with premise B as it is based in a tensed theory of time (or A theory) with a difference between past, present and future. This theory is not allowing for general relativity we observe, without positing excuses of illusory time and is therefore rejected in science in general. The theory accepted is B theory of time which posits it as a dimension and which also resolves the problem of an infinite (there isn"t an infinite number of things having to happen to get here similar to space).

2. Here I see the problem in the notion of causality, which, while effective if applied to things within our universe, where a beginning is just a rearrangement of already existing things, brings up several problems from no evidence that actual beginning of existence needs a cause to the fact that causes require time and that to have a material effect it also needs in everything we know a material cause, which doesn"t fit god.

Now 3 and 4 are just assertions that physical mechanisms are not able to build an ordered universe which is opposite to all the, to us observable, evidence. The pattern which the laws of nature are imply only allow for an ordered universe as we observe it. (specific points I would come to in a debate)

Concerning 5 I have to agree that science hasn't so far explained consciousness, but all we know about it suggests that it is a process in the brain and we haven"t found anything sign of a transcendent part.

6. Firstly, yes both hormone and receptor are due to evolution (you just assert that a natural mechanism isn"t able to but we have in evolution a mechanism that can and is extremely well attested). The DNA hasn"t the knowledge what it will be building, but is rather guided by the natural selection of helpful traits.
Posted by canis 3 weeks ago
No you dream a god outside time and space. And you have no idea of anything but your dreams.
Posted by debateprincess88 3 weeks ago
God does not require a cause because He is outside of time and space. I addressed this in my arguments.
Posted by Jahwei 3 weeks ago
Similarily, if universe was created by god, what causes god? And don't come at me with god has allways been here and is eternal. If god could have allways been here, why couldn't quantum fluctuation..
Posted by canis 3 weeks ago
It did not need a cause..But what would cause a god of any type...The only theory is "no idea"..
Posted by debateprincess88 3 weeks ago
badgerfishinski: I have addressed the "something can come from nothing" argument made in your link in prior comments. Basically, the article is defining nothing as a vacuum state. Besides, if the universe did begin via a quantum fluctuation, what causes the quantum fluctuation?
No votes have been placed for this debate.