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

It is highly unlikely 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  
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: 7/30/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 903 times Debate No: 36177
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




This round is for acceptance and basic definition/interpretation of the resolution.
I define God to be the creator of the universe. If my opponent has anything to add to this definition, feel free to do so.


If you define God as the Creator of the Universe (which I also do), then you should have been on the con side or made the headline "it is highly LIKELY that God exists". If you don't think God exists, then I accept your challenge.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for accepting the debate.
Just to make it clear, although I DO NOT think God exists, it is not my official position to argue that God does not exist.
Instead, I will argue that it is highly unlikely that the universe has a Creator.
If I may, I would like to also define the word "universe" to be an realm that covers everything.
So if my opponent were to bring up the multiverse theory, my definition of universe then extends to cover all the universes.

I have two main points.

1. The statistical probability that God exists is lower than the probability of the existence of the universe.

The common argument for the existence of God (I am not claiming that my opponent also hold this argument, although he or she may) is that when one looks at the elegance of the universe, it is hard to believe the universe just created itself. Thus there has to be a Creator.
However, we know, simply by logic and common sense, that in every design, the designer have to be a more complex being than the object that he designed.
For example, if a person creates a computer, then he must understands all the algorithm and the structure inside the computer well enough in the first place, making him a more sophisticated being than the computer. In all cases, the designer of an object has to be a more complex being than the object itself.
(Whether people will be able to create artificial intelligence smarter than human themselves is a issue that, I believe, belong in the realm of science fiction. If my opponent were to bring up this issue, the voter should keep in mind that it does not have an definite answer, which makes his argument illegitimate at best)
Based on the same logic, if God created the universe and the human being, he must be more sophisticated and complex than the universe itself.
If the universe was such a complex being that it is statistical improbable that it just happened without intervention, then God, being a more complex being than the universe itself, is even more improbable to just "happened" without intervention. However, the claim that God came to existence WITH the intervention from another being is a violation to the definition of the word "God" that both my opponent and I agreed on.
In other words, by definition, God cannot be created by a higher being than God himself. However, without intervention, the statistical probability of god existing is lower than the probability of the universe existing.

2. Based on my first main point, not only does the universe not need a God, but also the notion of God is a flawed (no offense intended) explanation of the universe

I'll start off by explaining why the universe don't need a God. By definition, God cannot be created by another being. Thus we have only two alternatives-- either God created itself, or God just came to existence by random chance. As I established in the first main point, the probability of both options being true are lower that of the existence of the universe.
So, if it is plausible that God created itself, then it is MORE plausible that the universe created itself (meaning the universe). If it is plausible that God just "happened" by chance, then it is MORE plausible that the universe just happened by chance. No matter how my opponent argues for the existence of God, he or she has to admit that in all scenario, the universe is less complex than God.

I here have a question that is central to this debate: Is the universe so complex that it needs a Creator? If my opponent answers yes, then he's admitting that God also needs a Creator, which violates our definition (How can a being that is more complex than the universe, which is assumed to be so complex that it needs a creator, not need a Creator itself?) If my opponent says no, then he's admitting that the universe does not need a God, which means that I won this debate.

I will explain why God is an flawed explanation of the universe. Let me refer back to the resolution, which states "It is highly unlikely that God exists" Here, we're talking about statistical probability, not absolutes. My opponent may have a strong belief that God FOR SURE exists, but I'm not claiming that God absolutely does not exist; I'm merely saying that it is extremely unlikely that he does. Here, we have two sides of the story: either the universe created itself, or God created it. Of course, if God created the universe, we have to ask the perfectly logical question that follows: what created God?
Thus, the ultimate options are: either the universe created itself, or God created God himself. As I established in the first main point, it is far more likely for the universe to create itself than than it is for God to create himself. Thus in all cases, it is far more likely that the universe DOES NOT have a God than that it does have a God.

I strongly urge the voters to vote for my side of the argument (Pro), and I appreciate my opponent for spending time doing this debate.


Thank you for clarifying your position, but it doesn't seem to clarify then why you labeled the debate with the headline of "it is highly unlikely that God exists". However, I will accept the change of topic to argue that the universe does have a creator.

1. Supposedly God is more complex than the universe itself, I somewhat agree with your theory that the designer has to be more complex than the design, but that's not the case for human reproduction. Not to compare humans and God, if the child grows up there's no evidence that the parents would be more complex than their grown up son/daughter.

2. If no one created the universe, how does it even exist? It falls in with the anthropic principle and many other laws of physics and chemistry, nothing can exist without a creator (1). You might be asking "how can God not have a creator?", this might be a strange source for you but it talks about this in The Bible in Revelation 22:13 (2). I also urge the voters to vote for the con side since I used more reliable sources.

Debate Round No. 2


1. The difference between a parent/child relationship and a God/universe relationship is a rather trivial one. I understand that Christians revere God as their spiritual Father. But in reality, God is not the biological "father" of the universe (not in the sense that we usually acknowledge anyways); rather, he is the "designer" of the universe. Parents are not more complex beings than their children simply because they are not the "designer" of their children. Their control over their children is only as powerful as their DNA allows it to be. God, on the other hand, has full control of the universe (although this trait is not included in our definition, I may safely assume that my opponent worship a Christian God since he quoted the Bible. And A christian God does have total control over the universe). Thus, God is undoubtedly a more complex being than the universe.
If we acknowledge this fact, I now refer back to my first argument, which is that based on statistical probability, it is far more likely that the universe does not need a God.

2. My opponent begged the question : "If no one created the universe, how does it exist?" He cited a website to use several scientific ideas to support the existence of God, with the main one being the anthropic principle. However, with all due respect to my opponent, I must say that the information on that website is intentionally misleading.
The designer of the website apparently has no deep understanding of the "anthropic principle" in the first place. This principle was never an idea to bolster the existence of God.
Here the "Creationist version" of the anthropic principle:
"Look at all the improbability that life exist on earth. Look at all the danger in the outer space that might easily make life on earth non-existence. If [insert a scientific value of an element on earth] had been off by 1 percent, we might not even exist. Look at this value and that value and that value...... if those values had been off by just a little bit, we might not even exist. Thus the probability that we exist without God's intervention is so low. What are the chances that earth just happened to be able to support life?"
I should emphasize again that the central question that these people have is that: "What are the chances that earth just happened to be able to support life?"
A normal person can easily spot the logic fallacy of this question. Whoever came up with this argument already has this assumption built in mind: Life started on earth because the conditions on earth were built to support life form. But how do we know that the conditions on earth were built to support life form? Because life started!!! To defeat this argument, one simply need to look at the universe itself, where the vast majority of the stars and planets are not supportive of life form, and ask himself:"Why is there no life out there?" And the answer is trivial--because those planets and stars cannot support life. At least to our knowledge, Earth is the only planet capable of supporting life. And guess what? Life DID start on earth. The anthropic principle was never about probability(if you understand the term "probability" correctly). If anything, we know that the chance that earth being capable of supporting life is EXACTLY 100 percent, because life DID start on earth. As for those "conditions suitable for life" that the website posted, you don't even know what those conditions are unless life form has started!!
Here is a "correct version" of the anthropic principle:"We know that the conditions on earth were suitable for starting life because we are living right now"
As for my opponent asking that if no one created the universe, how does it exist? I must admit that I don't know the answer, neither does science at the current state. However, just because we don't know something, it doesn't mean that we need any imaginary(again, no offense intended) figure with no scientific evidence to complete this unknown area. More than a century ago, Darwin did not know how all the animals exist. Instead of being convinced that God created all of them, he went on research and came up with the theory of Evolution! Granted, Evolution does not explain how life started, let alone how the universe started. But it at least explained how the Human race started, how the dog race started, how fish came to existence..... We are closer than ever on our path to unlock the secrets of the universe, and the last thing we need is to be convinced that " since God created the universe, there is no purpose to research on the origin of the universe" Both the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory don't explain the origin of life and the universe, but, everyone should admit, they are really close! Evolution mapped out the progression of life and the Big Bang theory mapped out the progression of the universe. Recently, chemists can even create amino acid in the lab. Amino acid is the basic building block of all life forms. If we human can create the basic building block of all life, don't you think that universe is able to create life without resorting to supernatural forces?
Again, science do not know the origin of the universe.... yet. But the notion of God, as I illustrated is a flawed and unneeded one.


Nordenkalt444 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by rationalthinker 3 years ago
Reading your comment, I have noticed that this debate has shifted from philosophical and theoretical to more scientific and fact-based. And I love it.
Posted by rationalthinker 3 years ago
I am extremely sorry that I finished my arguments during midnight (assuming that you live in America), which give you less time to respond.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Conduct: Forfeit. Persuasion: Con said he sort of agreed with Pro, and then came up with a pretty good rebuttal anyway, but he'd already agreed. And then he forfeited, failing to respond to Pro's final argument.