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

It is possible that God does not exist

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/6/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 598 times Debate No: 96771
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)




Three rounds. Debate whether the universe could have been created without a god.


Hi I'll be accepting your debate.
I'm guessing the first round is just acceptance, so i will not post any arguments.
Just to be clear are we debating whether god exists, as said in the title, or whether the universe could have been created without a god?
Either way I will defend CON's position, and I hope we have a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Firstly, I'd like to expand the definitions of what we are arguing.

Definition of the debate: We are arguing whether or not the universe could be created without a god, or whether or not a god needs to exist so that the universe can be created. I am arguing that it is possible that god does not exist and that the universe (for a lack of a better way of saying it) can create itself.


The Big Bang is currently the best model we have and I think the only model we need to prove that the universe can create itself. The Big Bang is a Cosmological model which states that the universe starts as a singularity of infinite density (which would contain all the matter which we now see in the universe) which then is caused to expand from a singularity into the universe we see today. The problem which most people see with this model is the idea of how the universe can expand without an object to give it the force to expand; the answer lies in quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations is a fluctuation of particles appearing out of empty space. This can be called vacuum energy and is going on all the time around us even if we may not notice it. It is entirely possible for a universe to be created from quantum fluctuations because as it is entirely possible for matter and energy to come from nothing (in fact this happens all the time). The fact that the universe could have been created by quantum fluctuations has already been proved mathematically using the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (see If I may quote the authors of this paper (taken from their last paragraph):

In this way, the early universe appears irreversibly. We have shown that it is the quantum potential that provides the power for the exponential expansion of the bubble. Thus, we can conclude that the birth of the early universe is completely determined by quantum mechanism. One may ask the question when and how space, time and matter appear in the early universe from nothing. With the exponential expansion of the bubble, it is doubtless that space and time will emerge. Due to Heisenberg"s uncertainty principle, there should be virtual particle pairs created by quantum fluctuations. Generally speaking, a virtual particle pair will annihilate soon after its birth. But, two virtual particles from a pair can be separated immediately before annihilation due to the exponential expansion of the bubble. Therefore, there would be a large amount of real particles created as vacuum bubble expands exponentially.

In other words, the laws of physics allow the universe to create itself and this has been well noted (see references). The existence of a deity is not necessary and something can come from nothing.

I conclude my arguments that the universe could possibly have been created from nothing without the help of a deity. I give the microphone to my opponent who has to prove the contrary. Good luck to my opponent, I am looking forward to a fantastic debate.

By the way check out these references if you have time, one is of the paper I mentioned the others are more popular science articles which present some of the things I talked about in layman's terms. Thanks.



I thank my opponent for wishing me luck, and I wish him the same in this debate. Before I start my argument, I would like to present some rebuttals

1. First off I see you use a lot of quantum mechanics, such as quantum fluctuations, to prove the Big Bang exists. First off quantum mechanics is a theory that has so many holes and problems in it (ie - Measurement Problem). Not only that but quantum mechanics itself deny that the Big Bang ever happened. (Will explain in arguments section).

2. The Big bang theory itself has lots of holes in it as well. First off the Big Bang theory never proves the creation of the universe, simply the evolution of it. It states that the universe quickly expanded and is still expanding. The theory itself never provides the origin of the first singularity, without using quantum physics (which as said earlier is unreliable).

3. When looking at the Big Bang theory again, the existence of the theory depends on dark matter or dark energy, both of which have never been observed or proven. Comprising of a little more then 1/4th of the universe, we should have found some by now.

4. The big bang theory is theorized to have happened 13.7 billion years ago. However the universe is much to large for this to have been the case.
"The problem here is that if the Big Bang had occurred, firstly the universe is too large to have only happened 13.7 billion years ago, and secondly there is temperature uniformity which requires matter to have moved beyond the speed of light to become universally uniform. This of course, is impossible according to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, because nothing can move faster than the speed of light." (Techie).
As shown it is impossible for the Big Bang to have started the universe due to the current size of it, and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

5. "it is entirely possible for matter and energy to come from nothing (in fact this happens all the time)."
Only in quantum theory which is theory and unreliable. In normal cases no, because it violates Newton's first law of Thermodynamics.


1. As said before, you use quantum physics to prove your points, however it is extremely unreliable. If we are to use quantum physics it would disprove this universe ever had a start. (see here
"According to new research, there might not have been a big bang. Instead, the universe might have existed forever. The theory was derived from the mathematics of general relativity, and compliment Einstein"s theory of general relativity." (Walia)
As said above, if the universe always existed the big bang could have never happened disproving your point. If we are to use this information then one must conclude...
1.The universe has always existed
2. The universe has never existed
3. A being (god) with omnipotence (The ability to do anything) ushered the universe to always exist
Out of these three theory's the third one seems to be the best theory, and the theory with the most explanation.

2. Dr. Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist and the co-founder of the respected and accepted String Field Theory, believes that the universe was created by a god and can prove it. As shown in this quote...
"I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence, not unlike a favorite computer game, but of course, more complex and unthinkable," Kaku said in 2015, according to Nova Evolution. "Analyzing the behavior of matter at the subatomic scale, hit by the pitch radius semi tachyon for the first time in history, a tiny point in space, totally free of any influence of the universe, matter, force, or law, is perceived in an unprecedented way absolute chaos. So, what we call chance no longer makes more sense, because we are in a universe governed by established rules and hazards not determined by universal plane. This means that, in all probability, there is an unknown force that governs everything." (Kaku).
As shown above through the proof Mr. Kaku has presented, a unknown force must govern everything.

3. One more way we know the universe was created by god, is given to us by the Hubble Space Telescope.
"According to NASA scientist, data from these two telescopes is revealing that planets like the Earth are formed in the exact same fashion as described at Genesis 1:2, 3. According to NASA, planets form inside a proto-planetary disc of dust and debris, starting out in a formless and chaotic state in total darkness, as describe in Genesis verse 2. "Now the earth proved to be formless and waste, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep."
NASA's scientists have discovered that as the planets mature inside their dusty cocoon they suck up all the dust between them and the sun so that the planets slowly emerge from darkness into the light as described in Genesis verse 3. "Let light come to be." Then there came to be light."
As shown in the text above Genesis describes the formation of a planet with startling accuracy. Genesis was written in 10th century B.C. so how could they know how planets were formed, without being told by the person who created them?

4. This is less of an argument piece, and more of a list. Many famous scientists have believed in a god/ a god created universe, just to name a few...
- Albert Einstein (Physicist, Did lots of things, ie - Einstein's theory of relativity)
- Dr. Michio Kaku (Physicist, Co-founder of the string field theory)
- Charles Darwin (Creator of evolution) (Believed in him, however occasionally doubted)
- Galileo Galilei (Famous astronomer)
- Sir Francis Bacon (Made the scientific method)
- Carl Sagan (Astronomer)
- Maria Mitchell (Astronomer)
- Francis Collins (Director of the National Institutes of Health)
Notice how almost all of these are physicists/astronomers, they deal with things me and PRO are currently discussing, and still believe in god.

I conclude my argument here, and state the universe couldn't have been created without the help of a god. Good luck to my opponent and let's have continue this great debate.

Debate Round No. 2


Allow me to write some rebuttals to your rebuttals:

1. Your statement: Quantum Mechanics has so many holes in it.

This is false. This is so completely false. Quantum mechanics is one of the most well-tested theories of all-time. There has never been a properly performed experiment which has proved any axiom of Quantum Mechanics to be false (I would provide a reference but there are too many, seriously just try and prove something from QM that has ever been proven wrong....there is nothing). Ironically one of the articles my opponent uses as a reference has the following quote:

"Despite the unrivaled empirical success of quantum theory..."-(T. Folger, "Quantum Shmantum")

Even his own references disagree with his view of quantum theory.

2. Your statement: The Big Bang has a lot of holes in it as well.
A). Quantum physics is not unreliable, it is at times imprecise but never, I repeat never, unreliable.
B). The idea of not knowing where the singularity came from is not a weakness of the Big Bang because you have no idea where your deity came from. Atheists and Christians have the same problem in this respect. Also the debate is on whether or not the universe NEEDED a deity to be created and since we have the same problem this is actually a plus for me.

3. That is not at all true. Dark Energy and Dark Matter do exist, we know this. Something is there and we have near certain knowledge of this. Its a little like how we knew that there was a nucleus in the atom before we could see it, we could tell through experimentation that there was something there.

4. This is pseudo-science. The passage you quoted was from a blogger named Tanya Techie (this is the article who is a blogger and not a scientist (in other words my opponent has quoted a person lacking any scientific degree who believes that the Big Bang Theory is a scam perpetrated by scientist just to screw with us). This "scientist" clearly misunderstands the Second Law of Thermodynamics in point four. She is not a scientific authority and should not be listened to.

5. QUANTUM THEORY IS NOT UNRELIABLE! I'm not even sure why you say that it is (sorry if I sound rude here this gets me worked up). It has been validated in thousands upon thousands of experiments. There is absolutely no basis for mistrusting Quantum Theory. Scientists did not create Quantum Theory just to screw with actually works.

In my opinion, I have successfully found a flaw in each of my opponent's rebuttals and will now be moving on to rebutting his arguments.

First off, I'd like to note that the burden of proof in this argument is on my opponent as he has to prove absolutely that God must have existed where I only have to prove that he may have not existed. Since even his arguments do not attempt to absolutely prove that God must have existed (he says quote "seems to be the best theory" not unequivocally is the best). I do not really have to rebut any of his arguments.....But I will anyway.


This paper is more of a theoretical math paper than a physics paper. The authors replace Geodesic trajectories with Quantal Bohmian trajectories. This can be seen in one of their opening sentences:

"It was shown recently that replacing classical geodesics with quantal (Bohmian) trajectories gives rise to a quantum corrected Raychaudhuri equation (QRE)."-(Cosmology from Quantum Potential)

This is not great physics. This is the equivalent of saying assume a singularity cannot be formed (this is corollary to the replacement of classical geodesics because quantal trajectories do not allow convergence). Also the testable predictions from this paper do not work unless you allow the Graviton to have a mass which is not predicted by the Standard Model. This paper is pseudo-scientific, perhaps if I was nice I would call it theoretical.


Michio Kaku cleverly makes use of "primitive semi-radius tachyons" which is not a thing. Seriously, search primitive semi-radius tachyons, the only results you will yield are all references to this quote. "Primitive semi-radius tachyons" have never been used in any legitimate physics research paper.


I could break this argument apart but I think my reference proving this quote to be entirely false will do a better job.

Firstly, Albert Einstein did not believe in a god. To quote the great atheist Richard Dawkins "Einstein was repeatedly indignant at being labeled as a theist" (Dawkins, The God Delusion).
Secondly, Carl Sagan did not believe in a god. He was an agnostic. To quote Carl Sagan "I am not an atheist. An atheist is someone who has compelling evidence that there is no Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. I am not that wise, but neither do I consider there to be anything approaching adequate evidence for such a god" (to Robert Pope, Oct. 2, 1996).
Thirdly, 93 percent of the scientists on The National Academy of Scientists are either atheist or agnostic so there is a much larger precedent for atheism in science than there is theism. There are too many atheist scientists to name but take a look at this incomplete list (

That concludes my argument best of luck to my opponent.

-My brain


I won't post any arguments in this round (Due to the opponent not being able to respond), However I will re-butte to certain statements.


1. Quantum Mechanics
My opponent claims...
"This is false. This is so completely false. Quantum mechanics is one of the most well-tested theories of all-time."
I beg to differ. These (and multiple other articles) claim quantum mechanics to be wrong or unreliable.
And quantum mechanics does have many holes in it, such as the measurement problem which questions how wave-function collapse occurs. We have no answer for this, despite it being an important part of quantum mechanics, making quantum mechanics unreliable.

2. The Big Bang
My opponent claims...
" you have no idea where your deity came from."
Sadly you didn't bring this up when debating, we could have debated it. The explanation is, God didn't come into existence, he always was, is, and will forever be. In other words he has always existed. The bible claims this. Also the beauty of omnipotence (The power to do anything) means, if you don't believe he always existed, he could've created himself. Because I know where my God came from, and you don't know where your singularity came from, this is in-fact a plus for me.

3. Dark Matter
My opponent claims...
"Dark Energy and Dark Matter do exist, we know this. Something is there and we have near certain knowledge of this."
This is simply false. We haven't found dark matter at all. Here is an article, somewhat recent to, that claims dark matter has not been found.
In the article, the only reason he says dark matter exists is because of the way the universe formed. However he hasn't found or tested any at all, which is strange for something that makes up a large percent of our universe.

4. Article
This was simply a reference for me, and scientist or not Tenchie brings up some good points. However it was only a reference and I didn't use this in an argument, therefore it shouldn't be a problem.

5. Quantum theory
Look at rebuttal number 1.

6. Rebuttal argument 1
The only math it ever mentions is when speaking of the mathematics of general relativity. You even say the quote you posted is about physics, not mathematics right under it.
You also claim...
"Also the testable predictions from this paper do not work unless you allow the Graviton to have a mass which is not predicted by the Standard Model. This paper is pseudo-scientific, perhaps if I was nice I would call it theoretical."
I respond with this quote...
"In theoretical physics , the GRAVITON is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory "
I think it's strange you call my argument theoretical, when the definition of a Gravition says it is used in theoretical physics, and the particle itself is hypothetical. This is why I try to avoid quantum mechanics, as it is theoretical and unreliable.

7. Rebuttal argument 2
I'll give this one to you, I didn't realize he talked about "primitive semi-radius tachyons".

8. Rebuttal argument 3
You post a link about a Tech Guy talking about how the planets are formed. If I can't use Mrs. Tanya Techie in my references, you shouldn't use this guy in your arguments. He is a tech guy not a scientist. As for his arguments, here are my replies/rebuttals...
1. It was still recorded. (Even if it wasn't with the Hubble telescope).
2. Grammatical errors, even when annoying, don't disprove anything.
3. God could have made other stars besides the sun (the meaning of the phase "let there be light"), and then made the sun to rotate earth, to tell day and night (exactly as said in genesis).
Honestly, this guy needs to read more Genesis, despite his self-proclaimed knowledge of it, he seemed to know very little. Nothing was proven in this article, thus my argument still stands.

9. Rebuttal argument 4
As for Einstein, my opponent puts up...
"Einstein was repeatedly indignant at being labeled as a theist" (Dawkins, The God Delusion).
However, here is a quote from Einstein himself...
"The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who " in their grudge against the traditional religion as the "opium of the masses" " cannot hear the music of the spheres." (Einstein)
From reading this you can tell Einstein was not an atheist. Einstein didn't believe in a god that loved for you and answers your prayers, but he did believe in a god/deity that created the universe, which still means he believed in a god. This is also is why he hated being called a theist. Here is a quote from an article taking about several letters about religion Einstein had wrote...
" Einstein"s religion, if you have to put a label to it, is a sort of nebulous Deism: Maybe God played in role in creating the universe " because nature inspires such awe and the universe seems perfectly guided by mathematics"
It shows above, that Einstein did believe in god, contrary to my opponents belief. Also to counter the list of atheist scientists my opponent put up, here is a list of christian ones.

This concludes my rebuttals. I wish luck to my opponent, and now we let the voters decide. I will now sign off.
Vote Con!

Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: Philosophy123// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (S&G, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Firstly pro's grammar is slightly better. Secondly he successfully refutes all cons arguments and shows an example where it is possible that god doesn't exist. Third Con uses some bad sources.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) S&G is insufficiently explained. The voter is required to show how one side"s writing made it difficult to understand their arguments. Having slightly better grammar is not a sufficient reason to award this point. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to assess specific points made by both sides. Stating that one side"s points were refuted and explaining what the other managed with an unknown example is not sufficient. (3) Sources are insufficiently explained. Merely stating that one side had bad sources is not enough " the voter must compare the sources and explain why they were "bad."
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: szexiv// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con argued again the the premises and conclusions put forward by providing. However, con did NOT address the actual debated topic. In so far as that, con has failed to prove that it is not possible that god doesn't exist.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both sides. Merely stating generally what the voter believes Con failed to do is insufficient.
Posted by batman01 1 year ago
To fishunter61 (please don't include this as part of the debate this is just a personal note):

The difference between the Standard Model being called Theoretical and the paper you referenced being called theoretical is that the Standard Model is a model based in empirical results which has predicted the particles we will discover with great accuracy whereas the paper you quoted was not just theoretical it was a paper in which the authors made up something about the universe (used Bohmian trajectories instead of Geodesic trajectories which is a very large assumption) to try and prove something about the universe. This is mathematics and not science.
Posted by batman01 1 year ago
To Jo154676:

That is a really interesting question and I'm glad you brought it up, sorry I did not address it in my arguments. The answer stems from our definition of singularity. A singularity is not a thing which does not things, a singularity did not create the universe. The singularity rather is more of a point in time from which we cannot expand out current explanation of the universe. The Big Bang can be seen as t=0 since it was by all accounts the creation of time as we now know it. In other words, asking what happened before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the north pole. It is a question which is impossible to answer. So in other words we have no idea and no way of knowing how the singularity came to be. I neglected to mention this fact (perhaps out of sheer forgetfulness) because not knowing what happens before the Big Bang
A). Is not necessarily a flaw in the Big Bang model and
B). Provides no useful evidence for the existence of a deity which cannot be easily countered.

Hope that answers your question.
Posted by jo154676 1 year ago
Well you explained the Big bang theory well enough but you have yet to provide a theory for how that singularity arose.
Posted by batman01 1 year ago
Sounds good, I will probably post argument two later tonight.
Thanks for accepting and good luck.
Posted by fishhunter61 1 year ago
Just saw your last post, I understand now.
Posted by fishhunter61 1 year ago
Just to be clear, I will be defending the position that God Exists/He must have created the universe.
Posted by batman01 1 year ago
To fishhunter61:

We are arguing not concerning god's existence but on whether or not the universe could be created without a god.
No votes have been placed for this debate.