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

God is the Best Explanation of the Existence of 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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 783 times Debate No: 40751
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




I will be arguing that God is the best explanation for the existence of the Universe. My argument for God is that the Universe is a contingent object which began a finite time ago, according to Bord-Guth-Villenkin theorem, that shows that any universe that is on average expanding has to have an absolute beginning in time[1]. The only thing that could explain the emergence of all physical reality is some abstract personal being who exists by the necessity of his own nature, which is what most theists understand by the word God. The design of the Universe, which allows for the creation of intelligent life, shows the handiwork of God. If the Universe had different laws, quantities, and constants, then life could not exist.[2]




Thanks, Pro for starting this debate.

I accept Pro's terms. (Keep in mind I will sometimes post my argument from my phone so I apologize for any spelling errors.)

I will be arguing that God is not an acceptable explanation for the creation of the universe.

Since the first round is not acceptance I guess I'll go ahead and begin.

I will go ahead and start with the argument that I assume Pro is going to use in the near future, the Fine Tuning Argument. This argument can actually be used against Pro and I was actually going to use it anyway.

The Fine Tuning Argument Used Against God

The Fine Tuning Argument states that the universe is made up of just the right amounts of matter to support life and if these quantities were to be changed by even the smallest integer, life would have never existed.

Now this can actually be used against the existence of God. The best way I've heard it explained is by Richard Carrier.

"Similarly the “fine tuning” of the universe’s physical constants: that would be a great proof—if it wasn’t exactly the same thing we’d see if a god didn’t exist. If there is no god, we will only ever find ourselves in a universe finely tuned (in that case, by random chance), because without a god, there is no other kind of universe that can produce us. Likewise, a universe that produced us by chance would have to be enormously vast in size and enormously old, so as to have all the room to mix countless chemicals countless times in countless places so as to have any chance of accidentally kicking up something as complex as life. And that’s exactly the universe we see: one enormously vast in size and age. A godless universe would also only produce life rarely and sparingly, and that’s also what we see: by far most of the universe is lethal to life (being a deadly radiation filled vacuum) and by far most of the matter in the universe is lethal to life (constituting stars and black holes on which no life can ever live). Again, all exactly what we’d expect of a godless universe. Not what we’d expect of a god-made one."

" Thus, we have exactly the universe we’d expect to have if there is no god. Whereas a god does not need vast trillions of star systems and billions of years to make life. He doesn’t need vast quantities of lethal space and deadly matter. Only a godless universe needs that."[5]

My opponent insinuates that because the universe has a beginning this beginning must be God, or that the first cause for the universe must be God. This is an assumption with literally no evidence to support the claim. Why does this first cause or beginning have to be God? And which God is it?

From Nothing

At the subatomic level we find that matter can come into existence uncaused.

Mass can come from energy. (e=mc2) But, then, where does the energy come from? The law of conservation of energy, also known as the first law of thermodynamics, requires that energy come from somewhere. In principle, the creation hypothesis could be confirmed by the direct observation or theoretical requirement that conservation of energy was violated 13.7 billion years ago at the start of the big bang.However, neither observations nor theory indicates this to have been the case. The first law allows energy to convert from one type to another as long as the total for a closed system remains fixed. Remarkably, the total energy of the universe appears to be zero. As famed cosmologist Stephen Hawking said in his 1988 best seller, A Brief History of Time, "In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that the negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. Specifically, within small measurement errors, the mean energy density of the universe is exactly what it should be for a universe that appeared from an initial state of zero energy, within a small quantum uncertainty.[3]- Victor Stenger[4]

Now I will go into some of my better arguments.

The term "God" is meaningless

God is given the various characteristics such as omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, yet we have no clue what "God" even is.

Take a look at it this way.

The chair is brown. This statement makes perfect sense- chairs are usually brownish because most chairs are made of wood.

The sound is brown. Now we see that this can't possibly be true, as sound can find no medium which allows it to be seen and change color. We find that objects have secondary properties based on their primary properties.

The soul is brown, or even God is brown. This statement is literally meaningless because we have no clue what primary properties God or the soul possess. You could say that God or the soul is "immaterial" or "unidentified" but one cannot describe secondary properties of objects with an unidentified primary property.

The Null Hypothesis

The Null Hypothesis is a simple concept. Its used in many different subjects for determining something's "default" position.

The hypothesis states that all humans are born atheists and that atheism is a person's default position. Until a baby is taught or indoctrinated, the baby will not believe in a higher being and definitely not God. In order for a claim to be accepted, there must be enough reasoning for acceptance. This reasoning is usually evidence. We know that a physical brain is required for intelligence and a mind. It is illogical to think that a non-physical brain can contain all the information of the universe and goes against everything we know through evidence.


Debate Round No. 1


Con, your first argument here appears to be the weak anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principle is only acceptable if we speculate that other parts of the universe have different qualities or constants. If that were the case, then of course we should not be surprised that we are the only part of the universe which has the conditions necessary for the existence of life-forms. It'd be like a rich man looking around his neighbourhood and wondering why everyone's house was so big. However, this hidden assumption of he anthropic principle does not strike me as any less speculative than theism. Therefore, I do not see how I can nullify my wonder at the existence of life by assuming that our part of the universe, outfitted for life, just occurred by chance, and I do not believe I shouldn't be surprised to observe life in it. The chances of observing such a phenomenon as life in a Universe started by a (presumably) random explosion are so tiny as to be impossible to have been created by mere chance, nor are these arbitrary quantities, constants and laws created by any Universal Law of Nature. Therefore, to me the only explanation for the fine-tuning of these values is a theistic God who wanted to design us in a way that pleased Him.

To address your point that there is no evidence for God being the first thing in the universe, this appears to be slightly OT. Just because I cannot furnish evidence of God doesn't mean I cannnot propose Him as the best explanation of the existence of our Universe ex nihilo with all it's architecture. If archeologists dug up plates and tomahawks in the ground they wouldn't need any more evidence of the existence of the existence of humans there than that. They wouldn't assume they had been created by erosion or other natural processes.

Universe From Nothing Gambit

This Universe from nothing gambit you have used would work, if it were not for the fact that currently the best interpretation of Q.M is the Many Worlds Hypothesis, this is an interpretation that uses Probabilistic Causality to show particles coming into existence. Such an interpretion still needs an explanation for how the elemenetary particles were created in the first place from the primordial fireball at the beggining of the universe. This paragraph does not come close to describing a cause of the existence of such particles.

The God is Meaningless Gambit

God's primary characteristics can be gauged through the Bible. Therefore the basis of this argument is silly.

The Null Hypothesis

I don't understand this argument, could you cite a source for it please?


AlextheYounga forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Filler because of forfeit.


AlextheYounga forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 2 years ago
"This Universe from nothing gambit you have used would work, if it were not for the fact that currently the best interpretation of Q.M is the Many Worlds Hypothesis."

That's your opinion. Most scientists favor the Copenhagen interpretation, and it has over twice as much support for it, instead of MW by scientists based on this pole:
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I love it when a debator recognizes his opponents argument as a previously identified theorem and then blasts him on it. Conduct points for not forfeiting, Convincing arguments for presenting a reasonable case, and reliable sources for using data beyond the Bible.
Vote Placed by Fruitytree 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro successfully refuted the arguments made by Con , unfortunately due to forfeit the debate was cut I the middle.