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

It is likely that a God or gods exist

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/29/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 980 times Debate No: 74492
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (2)




Is it likely that a God or gods exist?

I am not interested in a semantic debate. By God or gods, I do not refer to a specific monotheistic Judeo-Christian conception of God. Rather, I use a more general, commonplace definition in which gods are either supernatural creators of the universe or even simply supernatural entities that are responsible for a specific aspect of the universe (for example, Poseidon is the god of the ocean, or Mars is the god of war). That is not to say that God cannot possess attributes such as being omnipotent or omniscient or omnibenevolent. Rather, Pro does not necessarily need to establish both that the creator of the universe exists and that he possesses characteristics ascribed to him by Judeo-Christian theologians and philosophers.

Both Pro and Con share the burden of proof. Pro must make arguments for the existence of a God or gods. Con must make arguments against the existence of a God or gods as defined in this debate.

Round 1 is for acceptance only.


I accept and thank orangutan for this challenge.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I present three arguments in order to affirm the resolution.

Kalam Cosmological Argument

This argument can be formulated in the following way.
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe had a cause of its existence.

The first premise is obvious to just about anyone. Our practical experience confirms that things do not pop into existence out of nothing. Moreover, for something to come out of nothing is metaphysically impossible. Nothing has no properties. Also, if universes could pop into existence out of nothing, why doesn't anything and everything pop into being out of nothing with no cause? We do not see horses pop into existence in our living rooms. Due to both metaphysical and empirical reasons, the first premise seems very plausible.

Hence, the crucial premise is the second premise. Some nonbelievers claim that the universe has an infinite past and has never begun to exist. However, the premise that the universe began to exist can be found in any science textbook. According to the Big Bang Theory, the universe began approximately 13.8 billion years ago. Additionally, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Singularity Theorem (BGV) shows that any universe which has, on average, a rate of expansion greater than zero has to have had a finite beginning, with very few exceptions [1]. Even if my opponent denied the standard cosmological model, the Big Bang Theory, my opponent would have to show that his alternative model is an exception to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Singularity Theorem. Otherwise, the BGV theorem provides strong scientific evidence to believe that the universe began to exist a finite time ago.

Moreover, the very notion of an infinite past is metaphysically impossible. This is because the idea that an infinite number of things can actually exist is metaphysically impossible. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Mathematics gives contradictory answers. See the Hilbert Hotel paradox [2]. Imagine that there was a hotel with infinitely many rooms, and all the rooms are occupied. One would think that no more guests could be admitted to the hotel. But if one showed up, the manager could make room for him by shifting the occupant of room one into room two, the occupant of room two into room three, etc. This leaves room one unoccupied, so the guest can check in. But before the guest showed up, the hotel was entirely full! What if an infinite number of guests showed up? Then the manager could do a similar process, shifting the occupant of room one into room two, the occupant of room two into room four, the occupant of room three into room six, etc., in order to make room for the new guests. So not only does infinity plus one equal infinity, but infinity plus infinity equals infinity.

This is absurd! But according to Dr. William Lane Craig, the biggest absurdities come when guests start checking out [3]. Suppose all the odd-numbered guests checked out. Then an infinite number of guests checked out, and the hotel would be half-vacant. But the manager could then shift the guest in room two to room one, room four to room two, etc., to make the hotel completely occupied. Suppose instead that all guests occupying room four and above checked out instead. The same number of people left as before, but this time there would only be three guests remaining. But this means that we can subtract identical quantities from identical quantities and get contradictory answers, which is absurd.

In truth, while the notion of potential infinity is useful in mathematics, the concept of an actual infinity existing in the real world is metaphysical nonsense. It would lead to logical contradictions. This suggests that rather than having an infinite past, the universe must have had a finite past. But if that is true, then the universe must have begun to exist.

Given premises 1 and 2, the conclusion that the universe has a cause of its existence naturally follows. Since the universe consists of all time, space, and matter, the creator of the universe must be timeless, spaceless, powerful, and immaterial. Moreover, the cause of the universe must also be personal. This is due to several reasons, but here is one of them. The only things that can possess timelessness and immateriality that we know of are abstract objects and disembodied, supernatural minds. But abstract objects cannot cause anything. Therefore, the cause of the universe must be a disembodied mind, a supernatural creator of the universe which qualifies as a god.

Fine-Tuning Argument

Physicists commonly agree that the universe is "fine-tuned" for the conditions of life. Many constants in the universe are fine-tuned for life in the sense that if these constants were very slightly changed, intelligent life could never exist. To give an example, physicist Luke Barnes says that the amount of matter in the initial stage of our universe is fine-tuned to one part in 10^55 [4]. That is a 1 followed by 55 zeros! And that is just one of numerous examples.

This form of the teleological argument works by using the fine-tuning of the universe as evidence of design. It can be formulated as follows.
1.The fine-tuning of the universe is the result of law, chance, or design.
2.The fine-tuning of the universe is not the result of law or chance.
3.Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is the result of design.

The chance that the universe is fine-tuned by accident is almost zero. And no law of the universe seems to suggest that the cosmological constants need to be the way they are. That means that the fine-tuning must be due to design. But that implies that there is a designer of the universe, quite possibly one who was interested in creating life. Since such a designer would be timeless, spaceless, powerful, and immaterial, that creator would fulfill the qualifications of a god as we know it.

Argument from Religious Experiences

Many people are theists due to the cosmological argument and the argument from design. However, many people are also theists for an additional reason- religious experiences. Throughout human history up to the present day, most cultures have had a concept of religion and gods. According to the Pew Research Center, today more than 80% of people in the world belong to a religious group [5]. For a few of these people, God"s existence may simply be a comparatively abstract fact about reality, in the way that "there are seven days in a week" is a comparatively abstract fact. However, for a large proportion of believers, their belief in God or gods is much more than a mere abstract fact. They believe that they have or have had real religious experiences. Some Christians call such experiences "bearing witness to the holy spirit." Likewise, people of practically all religions report knowing that God or gods exist due to feeling the inner presence of a divine being. Both theists and atheists acknowledge this fact. In talking about his past religious experiences, ex-Christian Mark Vulvetic admits, "You have to understand that atheism just was not a live option for me at all--it was on par with the notion that there might not actually be a material world at all" After all, I had personal experience of god--I knew his existence and his goodness first-hand" [6].

This fact can be awkward for an atheist. For on atheism, there is no reason to expect that people would have any religious experiences at all. If God or gods do not exist, why should people have such powerful, moving experiences? If theism is true, there is a very straightforward explanation, namely that God or gods exist. The atheist, however, is hard-pressed to come up with any explanation for why people have religious experiences. Unless atheists can provide a compelling explanation for religious experiences, they will be hard-pressed to convince anyone who believes that they feel the presence of the divine in their daily lives. So my opponent must provide a naturalistic explanation for religious experience in order to give the atheistic worldview any credibility at all.

The atheist might object to this argument, questioning the validity of religious experience due to the apparent contradictions between the doctrines of different religions. In response, the atheist would do well to consider the parable of the elephant and the blind men [7]. In the parable, blind men touch different parts of the elephant and come to greatly different conclusions about the nature of the elephant. This story serves as a useful metaphor to explain religious pluralism and defend against the atheist"s objection. Just because people claim different things about the nature of the Divine does not mean that the Divine is not real. It simply means that people interpret religious experiences differently, rather than meaning that gods (the elephant in the parable) do not exist.


I have presented three arguments for the resolution, namely the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Fine-Tuning Argument, and the Argument from Religious Experiences. If my opponent wishes to show that atheism is true, he must refute all three of these arguments and construct his own positive case for atheism. I again thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

[1] See the 2003 paper by Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin entitled Inflationary Spacetimes are not past-complete.
[3] Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008. 118-19. Print.
[7] The parable may be found at



: If I can refute any *one* of the properties of this creator, e.g. the creator is transcendent, an external cause of the universe, and exists *presently*, then I win this debate.

Ob2: Note that ‘exist’ is a verb in the *present tense*. Therefore, Pro’s arguments are not sufficient if they merely justify God likely *existed*, but that he is real and is somewhere *currently*.

C1) An External Cause Is Impossible

CIA. Causality is Impossible

According to scientific consensus, there was no time before the universe. [1] Without time, speaking of causes itself is incoherent. All causes, in order to be meaningful, need to have a state of affairs where events did or did not happen. Causality requires entropy, and without time, by the second law of thermodynamics, there cannot be entropy. [2] Therefore, causality is impossible.

P1: If God exists, the universe has a cause.

P2: The universe cannot have a cause.

C: Therefore, God cannot exist, and, hence, does not exist.

This shows that the concept of cosmic causality is flawed, and God does not exist, even if timeless.

CIB. Quantum Superposition

According to quantum superposition, an external cause of the universe is impossible.

P1: A transcendent agency is all-seeing.

P2: Observation collapses quantum superposition.

P3: We observe that quantum superpositions of particles are *not* collapsed.

C: An all-seeing entity cannot exist.

Defense of P1

If an entity is *outside* spacetime, then it can see all objects. The very nature of an external cause allows it to be all-seeing. In addition, this definition of God is all-seeing.

Defense of P2

All particles are at a state called a quantum superposition, viz. when they, for example, move in a particular direction towards a point, they simultaneously follow *all* possible routes towards that point, but they can be observed moving in only one route. [3] This applies to all actions of particles. Austrian physicist Erwin Schrodinger created a thought experiment called Schrodinger’s cat, which illustrates the state of a quantum superposition, viz. when a cat is thrown into a box with poisonous gases, the cat is simultaneously *both* alive and dead, but we observe it as either alive or dead (not real - a cat is a biological system that will be either alive or dead; this is an *example* to show quantum superposition). [4] For God to be all-observing, he has to be able to observe all superpositions of a particle, i.e. every state of it that it is simultaneously. This is impossible by the law of quantum superposition, and, therefore, observation will collapse all the superpositions till only one position.

Defense of P3

But quantum superpositions are still present, which means nothing is observing them, or they would have *all* collapsed and left the particle in a single state. As quantum superpositions exist, they are not collapsed, which implies they are not being observed.

Defense of Conclusion

Since quantum superpositions are not collapsed, there is nothing external to the universe because then it would have collapsed quantum superpositions by nature. Therefore, God does not exist.

CIC. Argument from Atemporal Minds

P1: If God exists, then an atemporal mind exists.

P2: An atemporal mind requires a process.

P3: All processes are temporal.

C: Therefore, God does not exist.

P1 is true by definition. To argue otherwise is to argue God is temporal, but as time did not exist prior to the existence of a universe, God could not have created the universe.

P2 is justified in that a creator God is an *intelligent* being by definition; refuting this would be saying God is not even a mind, which then clashes with the ideas presented in Pro’s own contentions, and contentions cannot be withdrawn in any debate setting. Intelligence requires a process, thus every mind requires a process.

P3 is shown in that a process is a *graduation* of changes, and thus requires a period for the process to begin and end. Without time, there is no period for the process, and the process cannot be contingent on anything, but everything abstract is contingent on something and has a requirement.

For Pro to refute this, it will *require* ad hoc reasoning, but an abductive inference requires least ad hoc explanations, thus an ad hoc explanation cannot refute God’s existence.

C2) Causality Is Not Required

We are led to cosmology and the causal premise, that questions the very origin of the universe. The causal premise is a premise that is used to support the existence of God via. cosmological arguments, which takes the structure: “Everything that begins to exist has a cause.”

But this is being questioned in light of recent physics and cosmological models, as explained in a paper by Quentin Smith in the Philosophy of Science journal of 1988.

“There is sufficient evidence at present to justify the belief that the universe began to exist without being caused to do so. This evidence includes the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems that are based on Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and the recently introduced Quantum Cosmological Models of the early universe. The singularity theorems lead to an explication of the beginning of the universe that involves the notion of a Big Bang singularity, and the Quantum Cosmological Models represent the beginning largely in terms of the notion of a vacuum fluctuation. Theories that represent the universe as infinitely old or as caused to begin are shown to be at odds with or at least unsupported by these and other current cosmological notions.” [5]

An example of this is a quantum mechanical fluctuation. During a quantum fluctuation, a particle and an antiparticle are created in the quantum vacuum without cause for a short period, as allowed by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, and they annihilate to release energy in the form of ‘packets’ (photons or quanta). [6]

An uncaused agency to exist for a long time is possible via. more recent physical theories, e.g. the zero-energy genesis hypothesis, which states that the sum of all energy in the universe takes a net value of zero, due to vector gravitational force acting as ‘negative’ energy to cancel out scalar ‘positive’ energy. The hypothesis allows for the uncaused formation of a gravitational singularity. This is supported by the fact that the universe is homogeneous. [7]

What powered the Big Bang?

C3) Law of Parsimony

The Law of Parsimony, a form of Occam’s Razor, posits that the explanation with least number of assumptions is more likely than other explanations. [8]

An explanation of atheistic metaphysical naturalism makes less assumptions than deism, thus allowing parsimony to deem atheism more likely than theism.

The assumptions of deism are: the existence of a physical universe, the existence of natural laws, and the existence of God. The assumptions of metaphysical naturalism are the existence of a physical universe and natural laws, which is one less assumption than theism or deism. Thus, atheism is more likely than theism.

R1) Cosmological Argument

RIA. The Causal Premise

My primary refutation of the Cosmological Argument shall be to question the first premise by using the very same contentions used by me above. The causality of the *universe* is not required. This is justified by the zero-energy genesis hypothesis, which states that the sum of all energy in the singularity prior to the Big Bang was precisely zero, thus its net value need not have been created. [9]

This is justified by the relative homogeneity of the universe and its constant expansive acceleration by the presence of dark energy. [10]

Cosmic Microwave Background - from my Big Bang debates

Secondly, as stated in C1, causality is impossible even from a timeless cause as causality relies on the then-nonexistent temporal dimension and its conceivability is incoherent otherwise.

Quantum superposition also dictates that an external cause is *impossible*.

RIB. Unjustified Properties

Pro must justify that “the only things that can possess timelessness and immateriality that we know of are abstract bodies and disembodied supernatural minds”. The latter is not “known of”, and then I can presume that even a non-sentient force may be beyond time, but that too is impossible as even a timeless cause requires temporality.

R2) Teleological Argument

I shall be defending that the so-called fine-tuning of the universe is because of random reactions from the vacuum genesis hypothesis. Gravity allows for the universe to be created out of sheer physical necessity and randomness in such a fine-tuned state without being improbable, because the very nature of the second law of thermodynamics is such that the conditions of randomness require all particle reactions to be random.

Since life emerged only approximately 3.6 billion years ago [11], the entropy conditions of the universe then must have been rather high.

This entropy signifies that the chemical and physical reactions that caused life were *random* from the Big Bang itself, as graduating disorder. [12]

Thus, the fine-tuning argument is refuted.

R3) Religious Experience

My refutation to this argument is rather simple. Spiritual experiences are subjective, thus merely signifying that God has subjective reality. But ‘existence’ refers to “having objective reality or being.” [13]

Secondly, the probability of delusion and lies is also *very high* for people with *objective* and *physical* experience of God.

Thus, the Argument from Religious Experience is refuted.


God cannot exist and need not exist, thus probably does not exist. The resolution is resoundingly negated.



2. Hawking, S.W. (1988). A Brief History of Time. pp. 151-153.

3. Griffiths, David J. (2013). Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. pp. 106-109.










13. Google ["define exist"]
Debate Round No. 2


I would like to thank my opponent for his detailed response. I am still a new debater on, and I apologize if the formatting of my response does not come out great.

Before making his arguments for atheism, my opponent claims that he only needs to refute one property of a god and that I need to show that this God or gods exist, rather than just existed. I believe this burden can be met, for my case is cumulative. Nevertheless, it still seems like a high burden, and it would seem my opponent is grasping at straws. For example, while it is extremely plausible to believe that a god exists today, my opponent would have me prove this with near-certainty, which seems to be a practically impossible burden for any philosophical argument. All I need to do is to show that my premises are more plausible than their negations. Second, I mentioned in round one that god need not even be a creator; gods can be mere supernatural agents. So it would seem like my opponent’s undeveloped claims lead to nothing.

Here is an observation of my own — TinyURL links should not be used as sources [8].

Arguments for Atheism

Argument against Causality

There are problems here. First, theism is compatible with even an eternal universe, for God could be an eternal sustainer. Second, causes can be simultaneous and do not have to come from a previous moment in time. According to Craig, the defender of the Kalam argument “may hold that God exists timelessly sans creation and temporally at and subsequent to the moment of creation, so that His act of causing the beginning of the universe is simultaneous with the universe's beginning to exist” [9]. Craig also gives an example of simultaneous causation when he says, “Why can't the cause and effect exist at the same time in an asymmetric dependency relation? For example, a heavy chandelier hanging on a chain from the ceiling. The ceiling and chain hold up the chandelier; the chandelier and chain don't support the ceiling!” [10]. In order for this argument to work, my opponent has to disprove simultaneous causation, which I highly doubt he can do. After all, it is his burden to show that simultaneous causation is impossible! Third, God does not have to obey physical laws like entropy because he is a supernatural being who presumably created the laws in the first place. So this argument seems doubtful.

Quantum Superposition Argument

Premise one, that God has to be omniscient, is very false. If you make a house, even if you live in the house afterwards, that does not mean you observe every part of the house all the time. Moreover, premise two is very doubtful, again because God is supernatural and does not have to obey the laws of physics. This argument is horrendous.

Argument against Atemporal Minds

This argument is also poor. Minds can hold beliefs, ideas, and thoughts eternally, without change, and hence it is very doubtful why intelligence would require a temporal process in the case of a creator God. Also, this argument, like all of Con’s other arguments, does not refute non-creator gods that may exist in time like Athena.

Vacuum Fluctuation Argument

My opponent makes this argument almost completely by pushing together quotations from different sources and leaving it like that. But many of his sources are highly outdated- his seventh source is a physics paper from 1973, more than forty years ago! In the meantime, science has moved beyond these outdated conclusions. My opponent proposes a quantum fluctuation model of origin of the universe, but he does nothing to prove that such a highly speculative idea is true. Moreover, he does not show how such models actually function as a disproof against a God or gods.

In fact, we have good reason to believe that such models are false. According to Craig, vacuum fluctuation models failed to outlive the 1980s due to theoretical problems regarding production of matter and due to a “deep incoherence” [11]. These models suffer from the problem that, given infinite past time, universes will spawn at every point in the vacuum and collide with each other, resulting in an infinitely old universe. However, this is not what we observe, so these models simply do not work. Hence, my opponent’s proposed model does nothing to show that the universe can be caused without God. Moreover, if this model were true, there would be only one universe, not a multiverse, which means that, not only is my opponent’s response to the Kalam argument simply wrong, but his response to the Fine-Tuning argument fails as well. So my opponent’s vacuum fluctuation argument simply does not work.

Law of Parsimony

My opponent misstates the Law of Parsimony here, claiming that simpler explanations are more probable. This is incorrect; Occam’s Razor speculates that other things equal, simpler explanations, given the available data, are better or more preferable [12]. But there is an important point to make here. Occam’s Razor prefers a simple explanation for the data, and I have shown that there are important facts that require explanation, such as the beginning of the universe. So this argument only works if all three of my arguments fail.

Arguments for Theism

Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)

I have already refuted much about what my opponent has said about the KCA. I have shown that my opponent’s Vacuum Fluctuation Argument, Argument against Causality, and Quantum Superposition Argument all fail, and most of my opponent’s objections are reiterations of these arguments. Let me in turn briefly reiterate the arguments for the first premise of the KCA, namely that whatever begins to exist has a cause. First, something cannot come from nothing, for nothing has no properties. Second, if universes can pop into being out of nothing, why doesn’t anything and everything pop into being out of nothing? Third, the causal premise is confirmed by our everyday experience. These arguments extend.

My opponent also questions my inference that the cause of the universe must be personal. But if something is timeless, spaceless, matterless, and non-personal, then it is an abstract object. If, by contrast, something is timeless spaceless, matterless, and personal, it is a disembodied mind. So my dichotomy between abstract objects and disembodied minds is sound, and so we have strong grounds for believing that the cause of the universe is personal.

Fine-Tuning Argument

I have already refuted my opponent’s quantum vacuum model, so my opponent’s rebuttals are simply false. Arguments extend.

Argument from Religious Experiences

My opponent says that spiritual experiences show that God exists subjectively, but quite honestly, I don’t know what “subjective reality” means in this context. He claims that experiences don’t conclusively prove that God exist, but he fails to understand that I am not using a deductive argument from religious experiences. I am using an argument to the best explanation, and I propose that the existence of a God or gods is the best, simplest, most plausible explanation for the fact that people have religious experiences.

My opponent mentions, but does not develop or defend at all, two rival naturalistic explanations for religious experiences. He says that people suffer from delusions or simply lie about their experiences. Honestly, I do not believe my opponent takes religious experiences, the primary reason why most people believe in God, seriously enough. In round two, I showed that eight out of ten people are theists [5]. A large subset of these people believe in God not because of the cosmological argument or the teleological argument but because they experience the inner presence of the divine. It seems extraordinarily implausible that all these people are mentally ill, as Con suggests. In round 2, I also cited ex-Christian Mark Vulvetic, who, when asked about his religious experiences, says, “You have to understand that atheism just was not a live option for me at all--it was on par with the notion that there might not actually be a material world at all… After all, I had personal experience of god--I knew his existence and his goodness first-hand” [6]. Does my opponent really think that Mark Vulvetic, and billions of others like him, are simply lying about their experiences? That seems extraordinarily improbable.

In sum, both of my opponent’s naturalistic hypotheses for religious experiences are extremely implausible. Theism, however, has a very simple explanation, namely that a God or gods exist.


I have shown that all of my opponent’s arguments fail to establish that atheism is true, and I have shown that my three arguments for theism succeed. A God or gods explains the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, and the religious experiences of billions of people. Atheists like to think that they are so much smarter than theists, perhaps due to their childhood experiences, but most of the arguments that my opponent has offered for atheism are quite honestly horrible. I, on the other hand, have provided a strong, intelligent case for theism, which my opponent has not come close to refuting. Unless my opponent can offer better arguments for atheism and better objections to my theistic arguments, I think we can conclude on the basis of this debate that a God or gods exist.











The source my opponent has used to support that “TinyURL should not be used” is an *unofficial* users guide. Majority of debaters use TinyURL when their links hinder character limitations, thus I shall continue using the same as it is not against any rule.


Ob1: My opponent has chosen to defend a deistic creator God and not a non-creative deity, thus I have to argue against a creator deity and *not* a non-creative deity such as Poseidon or Athena. My opponent seems to unfairly ask me to disprove both a non-creative deity and a creator God while Pro need defend only *one*. This is unfair and harsh, and I shall need to disprove only the one which Pro has chosen, in this case a creator.

C1) An External Cause Is Impossible

My opponent has *completely* misunderstood this argument. I did not say that the universe existed forever, I said that the universe began to exist *without* a cause. I am not implying an eternal universe. I am implying that the universe could not have been created, thus a *creator* is not compatible with this.

CIA. Causality Is Impossible

This argument is *dropped*. Causality is incoherent without time, and God cannot defy logic and the laws of nature. Logic is necessary for objectivity, and if God can “cause” something *without* time, then his existence is incoherent, thus impossible. [1]

CIB. Quantum Superposition

God is transcendent to the universe. For a being to be transcendent and outside the universe, while being able to *create* everything with it, he must be all-observing (not omniscient). Observation collapses quantum superposition, thus God is impossible.

“God does not have to obey the laws of physics.”

This must be demonstrated. *How* can God not obey the laws of nature? This is a bare assertion that has to be proven, and commits the bare assertion fallacy, which states that if a statement is *assumed* to be true, with no evidence, then it is logically fallacious. [2]

CIC. Argument against Atemporal Minds

For a being to be intelligent, its mind has to have a process, e.g. the ability to *think* or perceive. Since these are processes, they have to be temporal, thus an intelligent God requires time and cannot have existed prior to the universe. [3]

As for Athena, it is answered by Observation 1.

C2) Causality Is Not Required

My opponent seems to confuse the zero-energy genesis theory with vacuum fluctuations. A vacuum fluctuation was used by me to show that particles can be created without a cause. But here, it is the vacuum *genesis* theory, which is *dropped*, that is relevant.

Under a vacuum genesis hypothesis, which has been virtually proven by the homogeneity of the universe, and the isotropic spread of the Cosmic Microwave Background, energy begins to exist without a cause, as there is no net energy. [4-6]

My opponent alleges that such explanations “failed to outlive the 1980s due to theoretical problems …” In fact, the zero-energy universe hypothesis is the most widely accepted idea for both (a) the level of energy in the universe and (b) the origin of the universe. [7]

The vacuum genesis argument is dropped, thus I extend it to this round.

C3) Law of Parsimony

The Law of Parsimony will apply if I am able to refute all my opponent’s arguments. I will let it stand here.

R1) Cosmological Argument

Since my opponent has completely dropped my vacuum genesis argument, instead mistaking it for a vacuum *fluctuation* argument, my refutation of P1 still stands. My opponent seems to confuse that I am for an eternal universe; I am for a universe that began to exist without cause, which has been defended by the zero-energy genesis argument. [8-9]

“[T]he positive energy of matter can be balanced by negative gravitational energy, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes.” [12]

R2) Fine-Tuning Argument

The vacuum genesis argument has absolutely nothing to do with my refutation of the teleological argument. First, as mentioned, everything follows the laws of nature unless *proven* otherwise. [10-11] The second law of thermodynamics *majorly* increases the mathematical probability of the “fine-tuning” of the universe being created out of a combination of gravitational physical necessity [12], and randomness. [13]

R3) Religious Experience

I will address this in a more detailed manner.

RIIIA. Abductive Inference

When appealing to which explanation is more likely via. abductive reasoning, these criteria are generally ubiquitous regardless of what philosophy or field of study (including science) is undertaken. [14-15]

1. Has good explanatory power.

2. Is simple (Law of Parsimony).

3. Invokes minimal ad hoc explanations.

4. Is in line with background knowledge.

5. Makes testable statements.

Using an abductive inference to best explanation, I will demonstrate how metaphysical naturalism offers a much better explanation to religious experience than the existence of God. Except #1, metaphysical naturalism offers much better explanations to all the criteria; #1 is probably a tie between naturalism and deism.

#2. The naturalistic explanation to religious experiences pose that these experiences are entirely within the mind, which has one assumption: that it is purely psychological. The theistic explanation is that a deity (assumption 1) interacts with the mind (assumption 2). The theistic explanation has more assumptions, thus naturalism fulfills Occam’s Razor here.

#3. There is an *enormous* diversity in religious experiences, but the naturalistic explanation explains this by saying there is an enormous diversity in already inherent beliefs, while all varied theistic explanations defend one kind of God and can only account for this with ad hoc explanations. While theistic explanations can account for this, it severely weakens the statements with ad hoc explanations.

#4. Metaphysical naturalism roots its very basis with background knowledge, viz. a scientific explanation for the universe not involving God. Background scientific knowledge generally dictates the likely non-existence of God via. quantum superposition, etc. My opponent claims (without proof) that God is ‘beyond’ the laws of nature, but this means God is not in line with background knowledge, thus the theistic explanation for religious experience is inherently not in line with background scientific and philosophical knowledge.

#5. Metaphysical naturalism holds that existing physical laws are responsible for everything that happens within the mind, including religious experience. One of the theories for religious experiences are the contact with psilocybin, a naturally-occurring compound produced by more than 2,000 species of mushrooms. “Under supportive conditions, 20 and 30 mg/70 kg psilocybin occasioned mystical-type experiences having persisting positive effects on attitudes, mood, and behavior.” [16] In the 1980s, Dr. Michael Persinger, a neuroscientist, stimulated the temporal lobes of human subjects with a weak magnetic field; the subjects reported an ‘ethereal religious experience.’ [17-18] A new neuroimaging study with PET scans suggest *physical* stimuli in the brain, specifically in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, superior parietal lobe, and caudate nucleus. [19-20] There have been no studies that show in any way that God’s existence fueled these religious experiences, thus the naturalistic explanation makes more testable statements.

#1. For the ‘explanatory power’ argument, I will present a reductio ad absurdum argument to counter religious experience. Recently, there have been ‘scary’ sightings of *fairies*, thus there have actually been experiences of fairies. [21] Does this imply that fairies are real and triggered the sightings? That would be an absurd conclusion, thus an experience is not definite. Thus, metaphysical naturalism has equal, if not greater, explanatory power in explaining religious experience.

Thus, the religious experience argument is refuted.


I have demonstrated a naturalistic origin of the universe is possible, causality is not required for the universe to begin to exist, causality of the universe is impossible, that God must obey physical laws unless *proven* otherwise, and have refuted all my opponent’s arguments. Furthermore, the Law of Parsimony applies as I have refuted *all* arguments presented by my opponent. The resolution is resoundingly negated.










9. Stephen W. Hawking (1988). A Brief History of Time. p. 123.

10. Ibid. pp. 163-165.


12. Stephen W. Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow (2010). The Grand Design. p. 180.









Debate Round No. 3


I would like to thank my opponent for his response.

I would like to give a few observations before I begin. First, it is true that the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Fine-Tuning Argument provide evidence for an external creator, but my Argument from Religious Experiences does not assume that the divine is necessarily a creator. People had religious experiences in Ancient Greece as well. So while it is true that I am arguing for a creator God, I am also providing evidence that supports the existence of non-creator gods such as Athena as well, and my opponent has done nothing to refute any conception of a non-creator god. Second, I still maintain that using TinyURL links just to squeeze as many characters as possible into the debate, since “sources are worth almost as much as argument, and should take from the argument character limit” [8]. Third, in this round, my opponent claims that I dropped several arguments. This is completely false, as I clearly responded to them, as is evident to anyone who rereads round 3. No amount of asterisks can change that fact. Actually, in several cases I could respond to my opponent’s claims just by repeating what I have said in round 2 and round 3.

Arguments for Atheism

Argument Against Causality

My opponent completely ignores my objections and instead restates assertions that I have already refuted. For example, I argued for simultaneous causation- causes do not have to proceed their effects in time. I also argued that God, as a supernatural being, does not have to follow the laws of entropy. My arguments extend.

Quantum Superposition Argument

My house analogy still applies, and my opponent has not refuted it. Moreover, God is defined as a supernatural being, so by definition God does not have to obey the laws of nature. Practically every conception of God is immune to the laws of nature- I am not defending a god who is constrained by them! I think any reasonable voter will agree with me on this point. So this argument for atheism also fails.

Argument Against Atemporal Minds

My opponent simply restates the argument, and I would like to refer him back to what I said in round 3. A mind need not change- it can hold ideas forever. Moreover, William Craig’s conception of God is of a God that is omnitemporal rather than atemporal [13], and this argument does nothing to refute that conception of God.

Vacuum Fluctuation Argument

My opponent claims that I have confused a vacuum fluctuation model with a vacuum genesis model. Quite frankly, both names sound indistinguishable to me, and this seems like a disingenuous attempt to try to change the argument in order to avoid my criticisms in round 3. In a previous debate with Philocat, Philocat says that Tejretics argues that a quantum fluctuation created the universe, a claim that Tejretics did not object to [14]. But let’s look at the case that Tejretics presented in round 2 of this debate (by the way, he did this *extremely* poorly, piecing together quotations with barely any explanation on how they fit together or support his case). His first source is a paper by Quentin Smith, who, in the quote that Con cites, says that quantum models represent the beginning as a “vacuum fluctuation” [15]. Con also cites Wikipedia on quantum fluctuations [16]. Most damning of all, when Con cites the zero-energy hypothesis, he quotes a paper literally titled, “Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?” [17].

In short, I urge Con to actually respond to my rebuttals in round 3, rather than dishonestly claim that I have confused the argument in order to avoid my refutations.

We agree on Occam’s Razor, but it only applies if Con refutes my arguments, which he has failed to do.

Arguments for Theism

Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)

The KCA still stands, thanks to what I have said previously. My opponent also fails to respond to my arguments for the causal premise and for a personal creator, so these extend.

Fine-Tuning Argument

My opponent claims that somehow the second law of thermodynamics can show that the fine-tuning of the universe is due to necessity and chance. However, he does not explain how or why. Frankly, throughout this debate, when it comes to scientific claims, my opponent has improperly used sources, throwing them together without explaining or developing them, as well as using Wikipedia, a source which can be modified by anyone. He cites Stephen Hawking’s book, The Grand Design, in support of his claim. I do not have that book, but here is something we can all read- Craig’s response to it [18]. Craig explains that Hawking, contrary to my opponent’s claim, rejects physical necessity and instead argues for a multiverse explanation. But, as explained in round 3, if my opponent’s vacuum fluctuation model is correct, then we would witness an infinitely old universe, not a multiverse. There are other problems with a multiverse. Robin Collins offers five reasons to reject the Multiverse Hypothesis for the God Hypothesis, one of which is that any universe-generating mechanism would also need to be designed [19]. A couple other arguments are that the God Hypothesis is simpler to the Multiverse Hypothesis and that the Multiverse Hypothesis is an ad hoc attempt to avoid the God Hypothesis. If my opponent wants to rely on the Multiverse Hypothesis, he needs to create a plausible case for it.

Religious Experiences

My opponent lists several criteria for a good explanation, to which I will add one- plausibility. He then gives several criticisms of the God Hypothesis.

Con says that a psychological explanation is simpler. But I explained in rounds 2 and 3 that Occam’s Razor works given the evidence that we have, and I have shown in rounds 2 and 3 that the God hypothesis is much more plausible than a psychological one. Under whatever measure of “simple” Con is using, it would be simpler for me to assume that my sensation of my computer in front of me is purely psychological, since the assumption that it actually exists involves a more complex explanation requiring more than psychology.

Con says there is diversity of religious experiences, but he completely ignores the parable I used to counter this objection in round 2 [7]. Just because the blind men think the elephant is different does not mean the elephant does not exist.

Con claims that the God Hypothesis is outside of background knowledge, but this is not true- the KCA and fine-tuning argument show that we do have background knowledge for God. Con forgets that my case is cumulative.

Con argues that it is difficult to test the God Hypothesis. On the contrary, I think the origin of the universe and the fine-tuning of the universe provide good tests for God. Moreover, if the divine exists, we would expect that a large proportion of the world believes in the divine (as shown in round 2) [5]. The fact that people perceive the divine as just as real as the external world, as Mark Vulvetic did, provides further evidence for this [6]. Con elaborates on neurological explanations of belief, but there are at least two good responses to this. First, people in real life are not stuck in laboratories being bombarded by magnetic waves. Belief and experiences outside of the laboratory must be explained differently than this. Second, if God exists, it is not unsurprising that our brains should be designed so that we can be more receptive to him. On naturalism, however, it is very unclear why evolution would design us to believe in something that does not exist. So my opponent’s evidence does not, after all, support his case that the majority of the people in the world are delusional and mentally ill.

My opponent also asks why we should not believe in fairies if the Argument from Religious Experiences works. But belief in the divine is nothing like belief in fairies. Most people do not feel an inner presence of fairies like Mark Vulvetic did. Nor do most people believe in fairies. Nor do we have good arguments for fairies, etc. So this fairy analogy simply does not work.

Hence, my opponent fails to refute the Argument from Religious Experiences.


I have shown that the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Fine-Tuning Argument, and the Argument from Religious Experiences all succeed. I have also successfully refuted my opponent’s arguments. In particular, I want to highlight my opponent’s dishonesty when defending his vacuum fluctuation argument. Moreover, I want to highlight my opponent’s poor, haphazard, disorganized, unclear use of sources. Sometimes my opponent uses Wikipedia as a source. Much of the time, he cites sources without adequately explaining them and showing how exactly they support his argument. His sources actually show that, contrary to what he claims, he supports a vacuum fluctuation model of the universe, a model I already refuted in round 3. In general, my opponent never refuted a number of claims that I made in round 3. Unless my opponent successfully responds to my objections, I think we can conclude that theism is more probable than atheism.


[13] Craig, William Lane., and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004. 110-11. Print.












== Overview ==

This entire debate rests on one thing that Pro has yet to defend. Pro claims that God is "beyond the laws of physics." I clearly demonstrated that nothing can be beyond the laws of physics by using the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and many other major sources. Pro completely drops this and continues *barely asserting* that God is beyond the laws of physics.

This commits a fallacy known as "ipse dixit". An ipse dixit is "a sort of arbitrary dogmatic statement, which the speaker expects the listener to accept as valid." [1] Let me illustrate *why* this commits an ipse dixit fallacy.

Pro asserts that God, by definition, is supernatural and Pro does not need to defend it. Something that is "supernatural" is "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." [2]

One cannot directly assert that something is beyond the laws of nature without showing how that is possible. I demonstrated how it is *impossible* by definition of a physical law. While I accept that physical laws are limited, Pro must *prove* that quantum superposition is incorrect or a limited physical law that can be breached before directly saying this does not apply to God as God is supernatural.

My *supported* assertion that violating a physical law without proof that such a breach is possible is impossible, yet Pro has not responded to it in any way, and claims that I have dropped it.

== Observations ==

I maintain that TinyURL can be used as Pro's source against this is an *unofficial* users guide. Many prominent DDO users, such as Mikal, Bluesteel, 16k and Envisage, use TinyURL and there can be no objection. I add that the unofficial guide itself says: "If you like TinyURL, of course remove that bit." Thus, there can be absolutely no objection to the usage of TinyURL.

I accept that I will also make arguments against non-creator supernatural beings.

== A Note on Sources ==

1. A source being old does not mean the source has outdated data, unless proven otherwise. Pro frequently claims my sources are old *without* showing HOW the subject data is flawed.

2. Me citing a physics book as a source does not guarantee that I agree with everything in that book or paper. For example, if I cite a paper as a source on quantum superposition, that *will not* mean I agree with everything else in the paper if they are hypotheses. But if the paper *also* contains a fact, and I cite it for that fact, you cannot directly dismiss it saying that the source also says something incorrect, so you disagree with the source. When a source is cited, it is a *reference* for information and NOT my entire argument.

3. The Grand Design does not advocate for a position of the multiverse theory, merely stating it is a possibility. It instead advocates for M-theory, which is perhaps dubious, but nonetheless irrelevant to this debate.

== Refutation & Defense ==

(1) Cosmology

In this subdivision, I will (a) defend my case on causality being impossible and not required, and (b) refute the KCA.

//A// Causality Is Not Required

While I *did* cite that paper, that does not mean I am defending that model. Secondly, prior debates have no bearing on this debate, for there is *always* a chance that people have changed their minds, which I, in fact, have.

The zero-energy universe hypothesis proposes that the sum of all energy in the universe is zero, due to scalar "positive" energy cancelling out vector gravitational force's attractive pressure, which acts as "negative" energy.

"[T]he positive energy of matter can be balanced by negative gravitational energy, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes." [3]

Under a sum of net energy in the universe being zero, the universe could have "popped" into existence simply because the energy in the universe is zero but still present. [4]

Thus, everything that begins to exist need not have a cause. Quantum fluctuations are an example of this. During this, a particle and antiparticle exist for a very short time (even shorter than Planck time), and then annihilate with a great release of energy. [5]

//B// Actual Infinities

My opponent uses the Hilbert's hotel paradox to argue for the metaphysical impossibility of actual infinities. Hilbert's hotel is a veridical paradox, a valid argument with an *absurd* conclusion. [6] Hilbert's hotel does not disprove actual infinities, merely showing that infinities have non-definite properties.

The American philosopher and Professor Emeritus at Boston University, Professor Michael L. Martin, writes: "Craig's a priori arguments are unsound or show at most that actual infinities have odd properties." [7] He continues by saying, "This latter fact is well known, however, and shows nothing about whether it is logically impossible to have actual infinities in the real world. ... [and] Craig fails to show that there is anything logically inconsistent about an actual infinity existing in reality." [8] The existence of actual infinities are justified by the existence of black holes, all of which contain singularities, a "point" in gravitational spacetime with infinite density and zero volume. [9] If there is already in existence a physical actual infinity, then there is no dispute that actual infinities can exist.

//C// Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorems

Pro's interpretation of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem relies on the assumption that spacetime remains classical and the presentism ontology of time is correct. The former is unlikely in light of quantum gravity, and the latter is dubious in light of general relativity, which entails four-dimensionalism (one of time, three of space) and eternalism. [10]

//D// Acausal Explanations

There are multiple acausal explanations for the origin of the universe.

Ekpyrotic Universe: "...our current universe arose from a collision of two three-dimensional worlds (branes) in a space with an extra (fourth) spatial dimension." [11]

Retro-Causality: "Quantum entanglement is a state where two particles have correlated properties: when you make a measurement on one, it constrains the outcome of the measurement on the second, even if the two particles are widely separated. It's also possible to entangle more than two particles, and even to spread out the entanglements over time, so that a system that was only partly entangled at the start is made fully entangled later on." [12-13]

As such acausal explanations exist and are possible, causality is not required.

//E// Quantum Superposition

My OV applies here. God is logically incoherent if he does not obey the laws of nature unless proven otherwise. In addition, IF there are explanations other than God (which there are), and God is not required, then the explanation which obeys physical laws is most likely. God's existence does not obey physical laws.

//F// Impossibility of Atemporal Causality & Minds

Extend OV.


Thus, the universe can exist without a cause, and causality is impossible.

(2) Teleology

The second law of thermodynamics, in simple, states: "[I]n any closed system, disorder ... always increases with time. ... [T]here are always many more disordered states than ordered ones." [14]

Thus, the universe is entirely based on chance and randomness, and this greatly increases the probability that the universe was fine-tuned by chance for life. This also relies on a philosophical interpretation that life even has a purpose. Perhaps rocks and living beings are the same, just "things", from a philosophical perspective of existential nihilism. What makes a living being "special" as compared to a rock? [15]

(5) Refutation of a Polytheistic Deity

Polytheistic deities are supernatural. It is already demonstrated that something being supernatural is impossible unless defended otherwise. Ergo, polytheistic deities are impossible.

(4) Religious Experience

#2: Once more, parsimony applies as I have defended my case and refuted my opponent's arguments.

#3: Yes, but these are contradicting properties of the being. Which property is correct? All arguments you have presented are specific to a single interpretation (except RE, but as that defends the same interpretation, it can be considered thus), so a simultaneous defense of all interpretations will contradict your own arguments. In addition, all your arguments on God being beyond the laws of nature are ad hoc explanations, and I invoke the "testable statements" argument here as well, as the only way to refute that is ad hoc. Religious experiences contradict, thus only ad hoc can defend them.

#4: Background knowledge requires God not to violate physical laws, thus the other explanation fulfills this.

#5: It is not difficult to test the God hypothesis. This is against religious experience, not the God hypothesis. "... it is not unsurprising that our brains should be designed so that we can be more receptive to him." - this is ad hoc, and has nothing to do with religious experience. And I did not say majority of the people are delusional; I said those that have objective experiences of God (very few) are delusional, i.e. they saw God physically.

This is nonetheless an experience, ergo "why" is not a good refutation. If something is experienced, then it is definitely true by the logic of this argument.


The resolution remains resoundingly negated. I have defended all my arguments and refuted all my opponent's, and my opponent defends their entire case with ad hoc arguments.


[2] Google ["define supernatural"]
[3] S.W. Hawking & L. Mlodinow (2010). The Grand Design. p. 180.
[7] M.L. Martin (1990). Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. p. 104.
[8] Ibid. pp. 104-105.
[14] S.W. Hawking (1988). A Brief History of Time. pp. 153-154.

Debate Round No. 4


Although my opponent refuses to admit his dishonesty, I thank him for a complex debate. I still maintain that TinyURL links are inappropriate. Sources are very important, and hence they should take up the character limit.

Arguments for Atheism

Argument Against Causality

Once again, my opponent completely ignores my argument for simultaneous causation. I continue to maintain that God, as a supernatural being, is not, by definition, bound by the laws of nature, which my opponent admits [20]. My opponent accuses me of just following a dogmatic assertion, but that’s like arguing that saying that a square has four sides is a dogmatic assertion that needs to be proved (it is part of the definition). In truth, Con is committing the fallacy of begging the question against theism with this argument. Con already assumes that the supernatural is impossible when he says that the supernatural must obey natural laws in order to argue against the supernatural. This is question-begging, and I have yet to see a reason why the supernatural does not exist. Hence, this argument is negated.

Quantum Superposition

My opponent has not responded to my house analogy that shows that the creator of the universe need not be all-seeing; this argument extends. I have also refuted what Con says about the supernatural needing to obey natural laws when I addressed the Argument Against Causality. This argument does not succeed in disproving anything and is abysmal.

Vacuum Fluctuation Argument

I must express my disappointment that my opponent has refused to be honest about this. As I said in the previous round, vacuum fluctuation and vacuum genesis sound like the same thing to me. I agree that on its own, showing Tejretic’s debate with Philocat is inconclusive, but taken together with the fact that *all three* of his sources in round 2 are about vacuum fluctuations, I think my opponent is being deliberately dishonest. As I said in the previous round, Quentin Smith, in my opponent’s own quote, says that these models represent the beginning as a “vacuum fluctuation” [15], and the other paper that my opponent cites is titled, “Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?” [17]. According to Craig, in this very paper, the author speculated that the universe might be a “long-lived virtual particle, whose total energy is zero, born out of the primordial vacuum” [11]. In other words, zero-energy genesis models and vacuum fluctuation models are the same thing. My opponent has done absolutely nothing to distinguish zero-energy genesis models from these vacuum fluctuation models that I have refuted in round 3.

Frankly, if my opponent did not want to argue for a vacuum fluctuation model, he should have developed his argument a lot better rather than haphazardly citing outdated sources. My opponent complains that I called him out on citing old sources, saying that that only matters if I refuted them. But of course, I did refute them! Personally, I think my opponent has *no idea* how to respond to my criticisms of the vacuum fluctuation model, which is why he engages in such dishonest maneuvering. My refutations of vacuum fluctuation models extend.

Cognizant of the weakness of his argument, my opponent has begun using criticisms of the KCA that he never mentioned previously. Despite claiming in round 3 that he believes that the universe began to exist without cause, he now argues against this second premise, arguing against the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and Hilbert’s Hotel. I think this is disingenuous; if my opponent accepts the second premise of the KCA, it does not matter whether he thinks my arguments for the second premise are wrong. For this reason, I do not believe I even have to argue against his new criticisms. Nevertheless, let’s briefly see where these criticisms go wrong.

Arguments for Theism

Kalam Cosmological Argument

The first premise of the argument is “whatever begins to exist has a cause.” I advanced three arguments for this premise, and *none* have been addressed by my opponent; they extend. My opponent cites quantum fluctuations are a violation, but this is incorrect. According to Craig, there are perfectly valid interpretations of quantum mechanics in which quantum events are deterministic, such as the theories of David Bohm [21]. Craig also points out that the quantum vacuum is a “sea of fluctuating energy”, not “nothing,” and is therefore not a violation of the first premise [21]. My opponent also points to acausal models, like ekpyrotic models. Again, my opponent misuses sources by citing without developing or explaining. Con cites quantum entanglement without explaining how this explains an acausal beginning of the universe at all. He cites ekpyrotic models without developing them, but according to Craig, ekpryotic models are a type of string scenario/M-theory [22], which my opponent in the last round conceded was dubious. The first premise remains unrefuted.

My opponent has claimed throughout the debate that the universe began to exist, and his choice to suddenly start attacking this premise is a more proof of his dishonesty. Con cites Michael Martin to attack Hilbert’s Hotel, but Martin is wrong. When you subtract infinite quantities from infinite quantities, you get contradictions. As Craig explains, “In transfinite arithmetic, inverse operations of subtraction and division with infinite quantities are prohibited because they lead to contradictions… But in reality, one cannot stop people from checking out of a hotel if they so desire!” [23]. My opponent also cites black holes as an example of an actual infinite, claiming that black holes have infinite density. But density is a ratio, not a quantity. What is actually going on when physicists claim black holes are infinitely dense is that black holes have a finite amount of matter compressed into a volume approaching zero. Since our mathematics starts to break down at that point, physicist call this infinite density. However, it is clear from this explanation that no infinite quantities are actually involved here. I use the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem to refute certain models that it does apply to, and while my opponent does not develop an argument against presentism, I maintain that Craig shows that presentism is compatible with modern physics [24].

Finally, my opponent dropped his objections against my argument that the cause of the universe must be personal. This argument extends, and the KCA remains unrefuted.


In round 3, my opponent cited Stephen Hawking’s book to prove that “The second law of thermodynamics *majorly* increases the mathematical probability of the “fine-tuning” of the universe being created out of a combination of gravitational physical necessity… and randomness.” I cited William Lane Craig’s response to the book to show that, in fact, Stephen Hawking does not believe this, and instead thinks that a multiverse theory is needed to avoid fine-tuning [18]. This is yet another example of dishonesty by my opponent. My opponent’s claim that the second law of thermodynamics fixes fine-tuning is a non-sequitor, and my opponent has never actually explained how this works. My opponent also questions whether the purpose of the fine-tuning is life. This is irrelevant- the point is, fine-tuning exists, and it requires an explanation. This argument remains unrefuted.

Religious Experiences

#1 Con completely drops the fairy argument

#2 I refer my opponent to round 4. Read the paragraph beginning with “Con says a psychological explanation is simpler.” My response is there.

#3 My opponent does not appear to even understand the parable I cited and does not substantively respond to what I said. He repeats the question-begging assertion that God must obey the laws of physics.

#4 My arguments show that God is within background knowledge. My case is cumulative.

#5 Con incorrectly dismisses what I say here as ad hoc without properly addressing it. I encourage readers to read what I said and decide for themselves whether this really is ad hoc. Con also denies that an inner feeling or presence, like what Mark Vulvetic felt, is an actual religious experience. Mark Vulvetic believed in God so strongly that not believing was on par with not believing that the external world exists, and my opponent needs to address these types of experiences too. If Con is correct, Vulvetic, and the majority of the people in the world, are delusional.

Thus, the Argument from Religious Experiences stands unrefuted.


I have successfully defended all of my arguments, and I only need one to work in order to affirm the resolution. In the meantime, I have refuted all my opponent’s arguments, exposed my opponent’s blatant dishonesty at multiple points in the debate, and pointed out contradictions between my opponent’s earlier and later claims. Moreover, I have showed that my opponent improperly uses sources, sometimes blatantly dishonestly and sometimes without using them to actually construct a clear, well-developed argument. The resolution is resoundingly affirmed. VOTE PRO.

[20] Google ["define supernatural"]




[21] Craig, William Lane., and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004. 6. Print.

[22] Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008. 137-138. Print.

[23] Craig, William Lane., and James Porter Moreland. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. 111. Print.






Pro completely drops the supported proposition of mine that something supernatural is impossible unless proven otherwise. The ipse dixit fallacy committed here is best illustrated in this way. Pro claims that being supernatural is part of God’s definition, thus does not need to be supported. To refute this, all I need to do is refute Pro’s own arguments.

If God is not necessary, then the laws of nature will apply as then Pro will have to defend every aspect of the definition of God without committing ipse dixit.


(1) TinyURL - A TinyURL link merely shortens the URL of a link, thus it does not, in any way, render the source ‘less important’ than the argument. Thus, Pro has yet to show why TinyURL links are inappropriate.

(2) ‘Vacuum Genesis’ - the vacuum genesis hypothesis, I maintain, is different. It is a derivative of the zero-energy universe hypothesis, that states that as the net energy of the universe is zero (virtually proven by the homogeneity of the universe), there is no energy to ‘create’ without time, thus it simply exists. [1] I request my opponent to click my first source to find out why exactly I think the universe is from ‘nothing’.

(3) P2 of the KCA - I refute these as my position is that the singularity prior to the Big Bang existed eternally, NOT the universe, thus I nonetheless have to refute Pro’s interpretation of the BGV theorem and the actual infinities argument.

(4) Fine-tuning - Once more, I am forced to show the sources overview against this alleged ‘dishonesty’. It does not matter what Hawking *believes*. Since my opponent refuses Wikipedia as a source, I needed a source to just tell my opponent what the second law of thermodynamics IS. The Second Law says that there are more disordered states than ordered states, and the alleged fine-tuning is about randomness.


My opponent has ACCEPTED my ‘sources’ note, but still continues to question the PERSONAL beliefs of authors of my books instead of accepting that I got ONLY one piece of information there. For example, if I use a book that supports the KCA to explain what 1+1 is, my opponent attacks that, but while the Pro-KCA is personal belief, 1+1=2 is a FACT. This is misconduct on my opponent’s part.

R1) Cosmology

RIA. Causality Is Not Required

The hypothesis I present is the vacuum genesis hypothesis. Let me illustrate the difference with the vacuum fluctuation argument. The zero-energy genesis hypothesis is a derivative of the zero-energy universe, that states that as the net energy in the universe is zero, only zero net energy need be ‘caused’, thus causality is not required. [1] Secondly, the zero-energy universe hypothesis, even if incorrect, remains logically consistent with existing laws, thus such a logically consistent hypothesis implies that causality is not required.

I did not say the M-theory is unlikely, I said it’s not proven. The M-theory is possible, and I cite the ekpyrotic model as it is logically consistent with existing laws, thus a cause is not required.

The logic behind the vacuum genesis hypothesis is as follows: “In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the ‘false vacuum’, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest , it gains kinetic energy as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.” [1]

According to the temporal impossibility of causality, the little energy required for this (i.e. within the false vacuum, as it is a “sea of [very little] fluctuating energy”) literally came out of nothing. [1] Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These annihilations produce the energy required for the universe to begin, LITERALLY without a cause.

“Since the negative energy of a gravitational field is crucial to the notion of a zero-energy universe, it is a subject worth examining carefully. … the energy of a gravitational field is unambiguously negative. … the same conclusion can be reached using Einstein’s theory of general relativity.” [2]

The Quentin Smith paper that I cited involved vacuum fluctuations as an example of causality not being required, thus is irrelevant to this attack by my opponent. The distinction between these two models is as follows: the inflationary theory of the zero-energy genesis hypothesis (which is a recent theory and the most widely accepted theory for the origin of the universe) says the universe has zero net energy, but energy nonetheless, which need not have a cause.

The vacuum fluctuation model is the ORIGIN of the zero-energy genesis hypothesis, which is a MAJOR variation with the flaws corrected, and, instead of proposing the universe itself is a vacuum fluctuation, posits that the uncaused energy further expanded via. the vacuum by antimatter-matter particle annihilations. Due to quantum uncertainty, energy fluctuations such as an electron and its antiparticle, a positron, can arise spontaneously out of vacuum space, but must disappear rapidly. The lower the energy of the bubble, the longer it can exist. A gravitational field has negative energy. Matter has positive energy. The two values cancel out provided the Universe is completely flat. In that case, the Universe has zero energy and can theoretically last forever. [3]

RIB. P2 of KCA

Hilbert’s hotel merely says that infinite number of people will check in and it will never stop. And infinite will check out progressively, yet never stopping (similar to Friedman’s calculations). What is paradoxical of this? Secondly, infinity plus infinity IS infinity, but how in the world is it even paradoxical? It is veridical and does not, in any way, disprove actual infinities.

In fact, the set theory of mathematics *accepts* actual infinities. [4]

Now, onto gravitational singularities. According to standard gravitational singularities, the infinite density of the singularity actually does refer to PHYSICAL infinite energy density. Physicist and mathematician John D. Barrow writes, “Another type of infinity arises in gravitation theory and cosmology. Einstein's theory of general relativity suggests that an expanding Universe (as we observe ours to be) started at a time in the finite past when its density was infinite — this is what we call the Big Bang. Einstein's theory also predicts that if you fell into a black hole, and there are many black holes in our Galaxy and nearby, you would encounter an infinite density at the centre. These infinities, if they do exist, would be actual infinities.” [5]

My opponent's argument is refuted: Barrow defines an actual infinity, “Aristotle distinguished potential infinities from what he called actual infinities. These would be something you could measure, something local, for example the density of a solid, or the brightness of a light.” [5]

As general relativity is proven mathematically [6], actual infinities exist.

If there IS a fourth dimension of time, then Craig’s interpretation of BGV theorem is most certainly flawed, since the temporal dimension would completely change classical understanding of time, unless relativity is questioned [7].

RIC. Teleology

1. Teleology is relative. There are various ways to generate the supposed ‘telos’ of various things, such as life via. natural selection.

2. This can be refuted via. a quantum superposition view of the ‘many-world’ theory, that posits that all quantum events are fulfilled simultaneously except for a single view of observation. Therefore, a world with our apparent fine-tuning isn't actually that rare, since all possible outcomes are created. Superposition is actually a property transferable from part to whole via. wave-function collapse explanation. [8]

3. Finally, the Second Law of Thermodynamics renders the apparent ‘fine-tuning’ of the universe an act of chance, regardless of the source confusion addressed above. [9]

R2) Religious Experience

#1. Fairy argument was not dropped. Previous round: “This is nonetheless an experience, ergo ‘why’ is not a good refutation. If something is experienced, then it is definitely true by the logic of this argument.” This has been dropped by Pro.

#2. Extend prior response.

#3. The question-begging doesn’t matter here, since its irrelevant to ad hoc.

#4. Supernatural questions science, ergo #4 not fulfilled regardless of whether defined or not, as impossible (demonstrated previously).

#5. How are these religious experiences TESTABLE? Not shown at all by Pro, I have acutely demonstrated metaphysical explanations for RE are testable.

R3) OV2

There is NO good reason to think why deism is true as I have refuted all my opponent’s arguments. Following this, by the OV, since I have refuted ALL my opponent’s arguments and shown how the supernatural is impossible, I maintain that without proving it, God being ‘beyond’ this is false and dogmatic simply because its not proven. Every aspect of the definition must be SUPPORTED. Pro has also dropped my argument against a polytheistic deity. Quantum superposition, atemporal minds, etc. render God’s existence impossible, and Pro dodges this with ad hoc arguments and shifting the goalposts. Thus, I extend the OV to ensure these arguments still stand.

Sources in comments due to character restraints.

Debate Round No. 5
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
"...its logically consistent with existing laws without the flaws. Oh lol, that rhymed." lol.
Posted by 21MolonLabe 1 year ago
Y'all make my head hurt. Great debate to both sides! I am not sure who I would vote for though.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
Reply to my PM ...
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
Not just that ... IF the voters read, we may both be criticized for our conduct. Apparently arguing in the comments is in violation of DDO norms.
Posted by orangutan 1 year ago
But as you wish, we need not argue in comments.
Posted by orangutan 1 year ago
The voters need not read the comment section.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
I said I support inflationary theory quite clearly, actually. Again, pls don't argue in the comments.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
@orangutan, the first source is a modification of the vacuum fluctuation model and the zero-energy universe with the flaws removed ... its logically consistent with existing laws without the flaws. Oh lol, that rhymed. And please don't argue in the comments section, that'll lose you a conduct point.
Posted by orangutan 1 year ago
And your third source is about inflation, but you did not propose a Chaotic Inflationary model or ever explicitly state inflation in your attempt to explain the model.
Posted by orangutan 1 year ago
Your first source states "Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated." So the authors are claiming that the universe is a quantum vacuum fluctuation in your own source. You cite this source several times in order to "distinguish" what you are proposing from a vacuum fluctuation model. But based on this source, I do not see the difference.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by usernamesareannoying 1 year 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: KCA was refuted, since Pro postulated that causalty is not needed. Con uses quantum superposition to prove that a transcendent being cannot exist, since it would collapse all particles since particles choose one quantum state when observed. Atemporal Minds argument goes to Con as the refutation was extended to another round, which Pro did not reciprocate. Teleological Argument was refuted by MWI -- quantum physics refutes the rarity of our universe. Pro confuses the vacuum fluctuation hypothesis with the zero-energy genesis hypothesis. Con uses Occam's Razor to refute the Experience Argument. Hence, Con wins the argument as a whole. Conduct also goes to Con, as Pro used ad hominem in a few instances. Sources is tied, since there was approximately the same amount used. Good debate guys - close one.
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con due to ad hominem attacks by Pro. Args to Con as Pro failed to argue and affirm the resolution, while Con argued his side correctly. Pro constantly confused the "vacuum fluctuation" hypothesis with the zero-energy genesis hypothesis. Con was able to refute the KCA, teleological argument, and argument from religious experience. Regarding Quantum Superposition, Con's arguments still stand.