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

Resolved: God Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+21
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 6 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/4/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 12,857 times Debate No: 72489
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (221)
Votes (6)




*This debate is closed. Please leave a message in the comments to apply.*

This debate is about the existence of a monotheistic God. If you wish to accept this debate, please leave a message in the comments section. If anyone somehow accepts this debate without leaving a message, they immediately forfeit the seven points.

God - an omnipotent, omniscient, sentient, benevolent being who is the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority
Omnipotent - able to perform any action, natural or supernatural
Omniscient - having definite knowledge of everything
Sentient - can feel or perceive subjectively
Exist - is actual in objective reality

48 hrs, 5 rounds, max. 10,000 characters/round

Round 1
Con - rules, definitions
Pro - arguments

Round 2
Con - arguments, rebuttals
Pro - arguments, rebuttals

Round 3
Con - arguments, rebuttals
Pro - arguments, rebuttals

Round 4
Con - arguments, rebuttals
Pro - arguments, rebuttals

Round 5
Con - arguments, rebuttals
Pro - waives this round

1. Appropriate conduct must be maintained - no profanity, trolling, or insulting other members.
2. Burden of Proof (BoP) is with Pro.
3. Logic must not be ignored [for example, by saying God is beyond human logic]; it must be accepted or rebutted.
4. All arguments must pertain to the definitions and rules. Any deviation from the established rules/definitions will result in the violating argument to be declared void. A second violation will result in the violator's complete forfeiture of the 7 points.


Right, let's get started.

The burden of proof is on myself to argue cogently that God exists, or that it is probable that he exists. Con need only refute my arguments successfully in order for him to win.

I will present three arguments in favour of God's existence.

Cosmological Argument

This argument forms the following premises and conclusion.

P1: Everything in the universe exists contingently
P2: Contingent existence is a property that is transferable from part to whole
C1: The universe is contingent.
P3: To prevent reductio ad infinitum, there must be a necessary entity on which all other things are contingent.
P4: A necessary entity would be the creator of all contingent entities
C2: The universe was created
C3: God exists.

Now to justify the cogency of the premises/conclusions:


This premise is known inductively a posteriori, in other words it is verified to be highly probable by experience.
Everything in the universe exists contingently; which is to say that its existence is dependent on something else (an event, an entity or a state of affairs). For example, a lamb's existence is contingent on the event of a ram and a ewe having sexual intercourse.

Everything we experience exists contingently, and as we know that the fundamental particles that make up everything are the same here on earth as throughout the universe (1), we can inductively conclude that it is highly probable that everything within the universe is contingent.


The argument I am making is often accused of committing the fallacy of composition (2); where a property shared by parts of a whole is ascribed to the whole by virtue of its parts. For example, each individual human (the part) has the property of having a mother, but it does not follow that the whole human race (the whole) has that property too.

Yet notice that not all properties fall foul of this fallacy; take colour for example:
If a brick house is made up entirely of yellow bricks, then it does follow that the house is yellow.

So we can conclude that some properties are transferable from part to whole, whereas others are not.
P2 asserts that the contingency is transferable, but how can we tell?

Well, the distinction between transferable and non-transferable properties becomes apparent with thought experiments. For example, we can easily conclude that 'having a mother' is not a transferable property, because as soon as we have a group of mother-possessing people it becomes apparent that the whole group doesn't have the property of having a mother.
Yet if we think of colour, we can easily conclude that if we group together multiple yellow bricks; the group as a whole would also have that property; it is absurd to think that it might not be yellow.

It is the same with contingency; if we have a group of contingent entities, then it is evident that the group as a whole is also contingent; it is absurd to think that the whole could not be contingent, as simply amassing multiple contingent entities would not make the whole a non-contingent (necessary) entity.

Hence contingency is a transferable property, and so it doesn't commit the fallacy of composition.


Following the reasoning in P2, if all entities in a group have a transferable property, then the group as a whole would also have that property. So if all entities in the universe are contingent, then the universe as a whole is contingent.


If there is no necessary being, then there is an infinite regress of contingency. For example, A would be contingent on B, and B would be contingent on C etc...
If everything was contingent, then this would go on for infinity, yet an actual infinite is an impossibility, as shown by paradoxes such as Hilbert's Hotel (3).
Therefore, the chain must start somewhere. This start point must be a necessary being, as a contingent being would just continue the chain further back.


If the start point is necessary, then we are prompted to ask: why do contingent entities exist at all? If the necessary being did not create the contingent entities, then there is no reason why the contingent entities exist at all. Hence we can inductively conclude that this necessary being created the contingent entities, based on the fact that the latter exists.


Logically follows from C1 and P4.


A necessary, transcendent entity that is creator of the universe? That sounds like God to me.

Ergo, as a necessary, transcendent entity that is creator of the universe has been proved with the above argument, it is highly probable that we can give this being the title of 'God'. Therefore, God exists.

Ontological Argument

P1: God = 'That of which nothing greater can be conceived'
P2: We can conceive of God and it is possible that he exists in reality as well.
C1: God either exists solely in the mind (A), or both in the mind and in reality (B).
P3: B > A
C2: A is incoherent
C3: B
C4: God exists


This is what many understand God to be. It fits well with the concept of the God of classical theism.


We can conceive of God (we can imagine him), otherwise we wouldn't be able to have this debate!
Secondly, it is possible that God exists as an existent God is not logically incoherent even if he didn't exist.


From P2, we have two alternatives:

1. We can imagine God, but he doesn't exist in reality (A)
2. We can imagine God and he does exist in reality (B)

As we know from P2 that we can imagine God, the only variable is whether he exists or not. As existence is a dichotomy, we only have two options.


The God in B is greater than the God in A, this is because it is greater to exist both in mind and body than just solely in the mind. This is clearly demonstrated in how theists think God is great (because he exists) and atheists think God is not great (because he doesn't exist).


The God in A is logically incoherent, because if God only existed in the mind, then we would be able to conceive of a greater being (the God in B). Yet this contradicts God's own definition in P1.


Again, as we can either choose A or B, we have to pick B because A is logically incoherent.


B entails that God exists.

Ergo, God exists.

Argument from Religious Experience

This is a probability argument, in which I will use the existence of millions of testimonies of religious experience to provide inductive proof of God's existence.

Before I start, I would like to highlight that religious experiences are very common; nearly half of all Americans report having had a religious or mystical experience (4). So these are not rare occurrences at all.

For a given report of a religious experience, there are three possible explanations:

1. The mystic is lying
2. The mystic is mistaken
3. The mystic is right

Out of all the millions of religious experience reports, only one case where the mystic is right (No. 3) is needed to prove that God exists. As even if all the other mystics are either lying or are mistaken, one instance of a mystic being right would logically entail that God exists.

So if God does not exist, then we would have to support the assertion that every single one of these religious experience reports is either a case of a lying or a mistaken mystic, yet this is unduly and irrationally sceptic. Probability would infer that at least some of the mystics are neither lying or mistaken.

This forms the following argument:

P1: Many religious experiences are reported
P2: The mystic is either lying, mistaken, or right.
P3: It is improbable that all mystics are either lying or mistaken.
C1: It is probable that some mystics are right.
P4: If a mystic is right, then God exists.
C2: God exists.


This is empirical fact.


I have explained this above, anyhow, its veracity is self-evident


On the whole, people tell the truth unless there is sufficient reason to lie. So if there is no reason to lie (as is the case in many religious experiences), then it is probable that they are not lying.

Moreover, if people report something, then it is probable that they actually experienced that something. It is unnecessarily and imprudently sceptic to deny this without prior knowledge that the person might be in such a state as to be hallucinatory or mentally unstable.
Yet this is not the case with most mystics. Most of them are of sound mind and have no psychological problems whatsoever. This would imply that they are not mistaken in what they believe they experience, as they have no reason to doubt that their experience was of actual reality.


This follows from P3


This is self-evident, as if a mystic is right when they say they experienced God, then this means that they actually did experience God. God must exist if he is to be experienced.


Follows from C1 and P4

Put into logical form, where:

GPE = God Probably Exists
L = The mystic is lying
M = The mystic is mistaken

GPE ⇔ [ ΣP(L) + ΣP(M) ] < 1

I will now hand over to Con, so he can attempt to refute my arguments.

Debate Round No. 1


I thank Pro for accepting this challenge, and look forward to a good debate.

Cosmological Argument
Contingent Entities & Definite Entities
If everything is a contingent entity, how is God alone definitive? This is a bare assertion simply because the BoP is on Pro to prove that God is not contingent.

Actual Infinities
The Hilbert Hotel problem merely shows that infinity does not act in the same way as regular numbers do. [1] Furthermore, the Grand Hotel paradox is also veridical, thus with an absurd conclusion. [1] Most arguments against the existence of absolute infinities are a priori assertions that merely show that absolute infinites have odd properties. [2]

Ontological Argument
Epistemological Possibility versus Metaphysical Possibility
Ontology merely illustrates the epistemic possibility of the existence of God, while the concept of having objective reality relies on a metaphysical conclusion. The specific definition of “possible” that must be ascribed to this debate is metaphysical, objective possibility via. Rule 3, which effectively states that logical conclusions must be drawn. While in a philosophical scenario one might argue that epistemology is a derivative of logic and can be demonstrated via. Modal logic, that is only in mathematical principle and therefore acts as a falsidical argument. [3][4] An example of differentiation between epistemological possibility and metaphysical possibility: an + bn = cn, where n is an integer greater than 2. This is possible via. epistemic possibility, but not via. metaphysical possibility, viz. a similar ontological application entails that the equation *is* possible, but *only* epistemologically. Thus, by metaphysical possibility [in terms of perceptive objectivity, wherein the fact that x is contingent is ignored, hence not entailing *any* subjective conclusion], the above equation is *false*. [Once more, this existence is contingent but metaphysical and, hence, objective]

Existence & Non-existence
The ontological argument assumes existence is a predicate and a positive property, else entailing a possibility illustrated below; but existence being a positive property and a predicate are not proven. [5] The same application of ontology can mathematically prove the reverse conclusion: “God does not exist.” It is *both* epistemologically and metaphysically possible in this scenario, unless it is *proven* that existence is a positive property.

P1: It is possible that a necessarily non-existent God does not exist.
P2: If P1, then God does not exist in some possible world.
P3: If P2, then God does not exist in *any* possible world.
C: God does not exist. [5]

Existence in the Mind
In C1, Pro makes a misinterpretation by stating God “either (A) exists in the mind, or (B) exists in both mind and reality.” An imagination of God does *not* entail A or B; rather, it entails a conclusion wherein God is imagined, and nothing beyond that. “Exist” means to “be actual in *objective* reality.” An agency x having objective reality in a subjective plane is a contradiction, because *any presence* in a subjective plane (eg. the mind) is, by definition, having subjective reality. As it is impossible to prove a contradiction, a possibility C *must* be provided, in which God has subjective presence. A is incoherent, but so is B. [This follows the definition of “exist” as provided in the debate] Therefore, this is a contradiction metaphysically and epistemologically.

The very argument of conceivability resides on a presumption that God, by definition, is “the greatest conceivable being.” That definition is not provided in Round 1. The assertion of this *must* be proven, or it remains a bare assertion.

Religious Experience
Mathematical Possibility & Burden of Proof
This argument *ignores* scientific analyses of possibility and stays within a mathematical assertion. A mere mathematical assertion is not proof; proof must be objective, not subjective. The scientific analyses of the same may be seen in the “Arguments” section below. “Proof” is defined as “evidence establishing the truth of a statement.” [6] This does not establish the truth of the rate of possibility of one mystic telling the definite truth. Hence, this argument is illogical.

The Big Bang
Proof of the Big Bang
In 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, an omnidirectional signal in the microwave band. CMB radiation was found to be consistent with an almost perfect black body spectrum in all directions. The surface of last scattering corresponding to emission of the CMB occurs shortly after recombination, the epoch when neutral hydrogen becomes stable. Prior to this, the universe comprised a hot dense photon-baryon plasma sea where photons were quickly scattered from free charged particles. In October 2014, a measurement of the B-mode polarization, signals of primordial gravitational waves, at a frequency of 150 GHz, was published by the POLARBEAR experiment. Models of cosmic inflation predict that such primordial gravitational waves should appear. Primordial gravitational waves are the result of three things: inflationary expansion of space itself, reheating after inflation, and turbulent fluid mixing of matter and radiation. Proof of inflation is proof of the emergence of the universe from a singularity, a point in gravitational spacetime with infinite density and zero volume, created from the energy inherent to gravity. [7][8]

Quantum Fluctuations
Energy can be produced by random, uncaused quantum fluctuations. These fluctuations are ripples across inherently existent gravity (gravity is always uncaused) that produce energy strong enough to concentrate into a gravitational singularity that begins to radiate energy as Hawking radiation. [9] In further explanation of this, let me illustrate the function of quantum fluctuations. due to the possibility of uncaused quantum fluctuations, there need not be a personal cause for the Big Bang. If there need not be a personal cause to the Big Bang, with a lack of evidence for a personal cause, we can discredit a personal cause entirely. I will show how there can be uncaused quantum mechanical fluctuations. What are quantum fluctuations? In classical physics, energy is conserved, i.e. it can neither be created nor destroyed. [10] Therefore, it would seem that the sudden appearance of energy, as required by the Big Bang model, would violate the conservation of energy. However, physicists think the uncertainty principle offers a way around this problem. [11] There is a formulaic interpretation of the uncertainty principle. Let ΔE represent the uncertainty in the amount of energy and Δt represent the uncertainty in the time. Then the product ΔEΔt is approximately equal to ħ, where ħ = h/2π, and h is Planck’s constant. [12] Planck’s constant has the value 6.62606957 x 10-34 Joule-second. Planck’s constant has the appropriate units of energy and time (Joule, second). The uncertainties are vanishingly small on a macroscopic scale. That is why the uncertainty principle is not observable in the macroscopic world. On the scale of subatomic particles, the uncertainties can be large compared to the quantities involved, so the consequences of the uncertainty principle can be significant on the microscopic scale. This is the effect of a quantum fluctuation. These fluctuations are caused randomly, released from the quantum vacuum. Explained in a simpler manner, a quantum fluctuation is a change in the amount of energy in a point of space originating in the quantum vacuum. These fluctuations generally affect thermodynamic systems.Since the change originates in the preexistent quantum vacuum (with minuscule amounts of uncaused measurable energy), the fluctuations need not be triggered by a personal cause and perfectly explains the Big Bang. [13]

Law of Parsimony
The Law of Parsimony, a form of Occam’s Razor, posits that the simplest explanation is a priori most likely. [14]

Metaphysical Naturalism vs. Theism
The deductive argument via. the Law of Parsimony states that metaphysical naturalism is simpler than a monotheistic view, viz. metaphysical naturalism entails the physical universe and its laws, whereas theism entails the physical universe, its laws, and God.

Probability Argument
Via. quantum fluctuations, etc. I have demonstrated that the existence of God is not necessary. If x is not necessary *and* is a scientifically unsupported/disproven claim, then x is improbable.

The resolution is negated.

2. Martin, Michael. (1990). Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. p. 104. ISBN 0-87722-943-8.
4. Inwagen, P.V. (1998). “Modal Epistemology.” Philosophical Studies 92:1-2, pp. 67-84.
6. “Proof.” The New Oxford Dictionary of English.
7. Penzias, A. A.; Wilson, R. W. (1965). “A Measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080 Mc/s”. Astrophysical Journal 142: 419.
9. Hawking, S.; Mlodinow, Leonard. The Grand Design. Bantam Books, New York (2010). ISBN-0-553-80537-1.
10. Empedocles (490-430 BCE), et al.



Thanks for the prompt response, Con.

Defence of arguments

Cosmological argument

Con here makes a straw-man of my argument, as he states that I said that everything is contingent. Yet I didn't do this, I actually said that everything within the universe is contingent. This would exclude any entities that are definitively outside the universe (i.e God).

'the BoP is on Pro to prove that God is not contingent.'

My opponent gets this the wrong way round. What I do with the argument is argue that a necessary, transcendent creator of the universe exists, and then ascribe this being the title of 'God'.

My point asserting the logical incoherency of an actual infinity is questioned. I will elaborate as to why it is incoherent.
Multiple contingent entities create a causal chain, for example A > B > C > D ... where A is contingent on B, which is contingent on C, which is contingent on D and so on. I maintain that an infinite causal chain is incoherent.
This is because, if we have a given contingent entity (X) which is at the forefront of an infinite causal chain, then it follows that there are infinite contingent entities in that chain. Yet if X was to cause a new entity to exist (Y), then this would be an addition to that chain. But this would mean that the chain now contains ∞+1 entities. This is an absurdity because no numerical expression can logically have a value greater than infinity.
This reductio ad absurdum argument refutes the notion of actual infinites, as their existence would necessitate the possibility numbers greater than infinity.

Ontological argument

Con says a lot of stuff here, although it is not made clear which premises and/or conclusions of the argument he is attacking. But I will interpret the rebuttal as best I can.

Firstly, the distinction is made between epistemic and metaphysical possibility. For the sake of the voters who may be unaware of this distinction, I will explain it:

Epistemic possibility is basically saying 'it is possible, for all we know'. So something is epistemically possible inasmuch as we do not know whether it is true or false, and hence it is possible that we will come to know either way. In other words, epistemic possibility is what the world may be.

Metaphysical possibility is roughly equivalent to logical possibility (1), which asserts that things are possible according to the laws of logic. Anything is metaphysically possible so long as it is not logically impossible. An example of a logical impossibility is a square circle.

Con states that 'ontology merely illustrates the epistemic possibility of the existence of God'. Yet this is not clearly supported.
Moreover, ontology isn't used to illustrate that God is possible at all - His possibility is asserted as given in premise 2.
In other words, the ontological argument already presumes that God is metaphysically possible - its actual conclusion only asserts that God objectively exists, it doesn't concern itself with arguing for possibility.

As something is metaphysically possible insofar as it is not logically impossible (like a square circle), Con has to prove that God is logically impossible, in order to refute premise 2.

Next, Con claims that my assertion that existence is a positive property is unproven.
Yet I did give inductive reasoning as to why existence is a positive property. This is shown by how God is considered to be great by theists (because he exists) and is considered to be not-great by atheists (because he doesn't exist). This implies that existence is a property that makes a being greater than another. Hence a being that exists is greater than an identical being that doesn't exist.

For example, a cure to cancer that exists is greater than a cure to cancer that does not exist.

My opponent's following syllogism that attempts to parody the argument doesn't work. Namely because P1 is unjustified. The concept of a necessarily non-existent God contradicts the definition of God as the greatest conceivable being, as we would be able to conceive of a greater being than a necessarily non-existent God. This is because I have argued cogently that existence is a positive property.

Con goes on to attempt to refute C1, as he denies that anything can exist in the mind.
Yet this is absurd - we know that things can exist in the mind, such as ideas, sentences and other mental constructs.

Finally, Con takes issue with my first premise, that God is defined as the greatest conceivable being. He states that this definition is not provided in round 1.
Yet I would point out that an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being is the greatest conceivable being, as we cannot conceive of a being greater than an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being. Either way, both definitions are interchangeable when defining the theistic God.

Religious Experience

My opponent fails to actually attack my argument here, instead he just states that the argument rests on a 'mathematical assertion'.If Con means that this argument is a probabilistic argument, then yes, it is. But this does not mean that it is an invalid or illogical argument.

He then goes on to say:

'A mere mathematical assertion is not proof; proof must be objective, not subjective.'

But this seems to imply that mathematics is subjective! This is absurd, considering that mathematics is essentially one of the most objective subjects there is.

Rebuttals of Arguments

The Big Bang

I never denied the veracity of the Big Bang theory, but nor does it refute the notion that God exists. The Big Bang is simply the first event in the universe, it cannot be used to explain why the universe itself exists, as the Big Bang is an event within the universe.

Quantum Fluctuations

Con postulates that the universe was caused by a quantum fluctuation, and hence it has no need of a creator God.

Yet this raises two problems:

1. Quantum fluctuations can only violate the conservation of energy for short periods of time (2), the universe has existed for more than 14 billion years and shows no signs of going away any time soon.

2. Quantum fluctuations can only occur in a point in space (a vacuum)(3), yet there was no space or vacuums prior to the Big Bang.

Law of Parsimony

This law simply states that, in the absence of evidence either way, the proposition that makes the least assumptions should be accepted.

Yet this law only takes precedent in the absence of evidence either way, yet I have already given evidence why it is likely that God exists, so the law of parsimony cannot be used to negate the existence of God.

The resolution is upheld.


(2) Ibid.
Debate Round No. 2


I laud Pro’s arguments. It has been an amazing debate so far.

Cosmological Argument
1. Pro is stating that in a group of variables x, y, and z, wherein x, y, and z are individually contingent, then there must have been a non-contingent origin for x, y and z. But if the existence of x, y, and z itself is contingent, then there need not be a non-contingent origin, because then the origin itself is contingent mathematically.

P1: The universe is contingent.
P2: Therefore, the universe’s existence is contingent.
C: If P2, then the origin itself must be contingent, viz. the universe’s existence is contingent.

2. The application of this is done via. the Hume-Edwards Principle, which states that if the existence of x, y and z are explained, then the existence of x, y and z are explained without a definite cause. [1]
3. Even if there is a non-contingent cause, how does that cause have to be a sentient, intelligent ruler of the universe? Pro must first prove that everything is contingent.

God, by the definitions provided in the debate, is omniscient.

P1: If x is omniscient, then x knows everything with certainty.
P2: If P1, then x perceives everything as certain.
P3: If P2, then the perception is ontologically metaphysical.
C1: Everything is certain.
P4: Definite certainty implies lack of contingency.
C2: Nothing is contingent. [2]

If God is omniscient, then the cosmological argument is refuted by a being of this definition. Therefore, the cosmological argument is irrelevant in proving this omniscient God who is the ruler of the universe, and instead reflects a Deistic viewpoint.

Ontological Argument
Epistemic vs. Metaphysical Possibility
In P2, it is directly implied that “it is possible that God exists in reality.” This is a bare assertion, with no proof whatsoever. Pro must fulfill their BoP by proving effectively via. scientific and metaphysical possibility that it is possible God exists. As it is a bare assertion, only the other portion of P2, which states “God can be conceived of”, is addressed, viz. if God is conceived of, then it cannot be implied that God is metaphysically possible; rather, God can only be epistemologically possible. [3]

This is not even a derivative. Atheists do not see God as non-great; they directly derive that as God does not exist [by atheists’ perception], it is irrelevant to “grade” God. Pro must demonstrate that existence is a positive property, not epistemologically but metaphysically. Pro merely provides analogies that can be refuted via. similar inductive reasoning, eg. if evil exists, it is not positive.

Ontological Nonexistence
Let me rephrase the ontological argument against the existence of God.

P1: God is conceivable as non-existent.
P2: God is non-existent in some possible world.
P3: God is non-existent in all possible worlds.
C: God is non-existent.

This is a derivative refutation using the same principles of ontology. P1 is justified as we can conceive God as a non-existent entity via. not believing in God.

Subjective Existence
By the definitions provided in this debate, to “exist” is to “be actual in objective reality.” Thoughts and imaginary constructs are subjective, not objective. This is a violation of Rule 4.

Greatness and Conceivability
“Great” is defined as “considerably above average.” [4] Omnipotence and omniscience are not attributes to necessarily conceive as above average, as if so, greatness depends on power and knowledge. What greatness is dependent on is relative and necessary to the ontological contention. That God is the greatest conceivable being must be demonstrated.

Note: I shall address the “Religious Experience” argument after further rebuttals.

The Big Bang – Quantum Fluctuations
Gravity was preexistent to the Big Bang. [5] The negative energy intrinsic to gravity allowed for the formation of locations in gravitational spacetime in a vacuum state. That gravity exerts energy is proven via. the Sachs-Wolfe Effect’s prediction of a gravitational redshift: as photons enter a gravitational potential well, they pick up extra energy, losing energy as they exist. [6][7] The energy is released as Hawking radiation in black holes, a form of black body radiation. [8] My opponent argues that space was not present prior to the Big Bang. Actually, with the existence of gravity, a form of “gravitational space” did exist prior to the Big Bang. While via. the Second Law of Thermodynamics, time is the rate of entropic graduation in the universe [9], prior to the emergence of randomness, time was “governed” by gravitational spacetime (according to the most accepted theories). [8]

Mass-Energy Equivalence & Matter
During a quantum fluctuation, two particles form: one particle and one antiparticle. As described, this is possible via. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Its application to matter is more detailed, and is as follows:

“In the beginning, there was not yet any matter. However, there was a lot of energy in the form of light, which comes in discrete packets called photons. When photons have enough energy, they can spontaneously decay into a particle and an antiparticle. (An antiparticle is the exact opposite of the corresponding particle--for example, a proton has charge +e, so an antiproton has charge -e.) This is easily observed today, as gamma rays have enough energy to create measurable electron-positron pairs. It turns out that the photon is just one of a class of particles, called the bosons, that decay in this manner. Many of the bosons around just after the big bang were so energetic that they could decay into much more massive particles such as protons (remember, E=mc2, so to make a particle with a large mass m, you need a boson with a high energy E). The mass in the universe came from such decays.” [10] Mass-energy equivalence, as described, virtually disproves the conservation of mass and allows for the theory of uncaused quantum fluctuations to be valid. [11]

The inflation of the universe after the Big Bang.

Uncaused Energy & the Uncertainty Principle
As described previously, the uncertainty principle [that illustrates energy/time uncertainty] allows for a temporary change in the level of energy of a place. To further strengthen this, I must state that, as the conservation of mass is “stretched” via. mass-energy equivalence [11], hypotheses such as the zero-energy universe hypothesis can remain logically consistent with existing laws.

“In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.” [8][12]

The zero-energy universe hypothesis, as cited by physicist Stephen Hawking in his book A Brief History of Time (Bantam Books: 1988), is very supported because of the uniform homogeneity of the universe, as seen in the Les Campanas Redshift Survey. [13] The universe is, thus, isotropic, as further supported by the finding of CMB radiation by Penzias and Wilson in 1964. [14]

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radition - From my various big bang debates.

Addressing Rebuttals of the Big Bang Argument
R1. Quantum fluctuations can only violate the conservation of energy for short periods of time, the universe has existed for more than 14 billion years and shows no signs of going away any time soon.”
CR1. The short violation of the conservation of energy allows for a change in the energy density levels enough to create a singularity, allowing for expansion of energy that follows via. gravitational energy.

R2. “Quantum fluctuations can only occur in a point in space (a vacuum), yet there was no space or vacuums prior to the Big Bang.”
CR2. As already illustrated, the existence of gravity allows for the permanent existence of gravitational “space”, allowing for the existence of locations in a vacuum state within a baryon-plasma sea of gravitational space. [8]

Law of Parsimony
Metaphysical Naturalism vs. Theism
I agree with Pro’s interpretation of Occam’s Razor. Once more, the existence of God is not necessary, allowing for the Law of Parsimony to be in my favor once more.

As seen above, scientific metaphysical naturalism is simpler than theism.
The resolution is negated.

2. “Purtill on Fatalism and Truth”. Faith and Philosophy: 229–234. 1990.
3.Inwagen, P.V. (1998). “Modal Epistemology.” Philosophical Studies 92:1-2, pp. 67-84.
4. “Great.” The New Oxford Dictionary of English.
6. Boughn, S.; Crittenden, R. (2004). “A Correlation Between the Cosmic Microwave Background and the Large-Scale Structure in the Universe.” Nature 427. p. 45.
8. Hawking, Stephen (1988). A Brief History of Time. Bantam Books. ISBN 0-553-38016-8.
12. Stenger, V.J. (2003). Has Science Found God? Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-57392-859-5.



Thank you, Tejretics :)

Cosmological argument


Con misunderstands my argument, I do not say that:

'in a group of variables x, y, and z, wherein x, y, and z are individually contingent, then there must have been a non-contingent origin for x, y and z'

Obviously this is not necessarily true. Instead, what I do say is that if we identify all contingent entities and put them in a set (S), then S is contingent (as contingency is a transferable property from part to whole).
But what is S contingent on?
S cannot be contingent on another contingent entity, as then S wouldn't be the set of all contingent entities (there would be an external contingent entity). Therefore S must be contingent on a necessary entity.

Con then cites the Hume-Edwards Principle. Yet this doesn't solve the problem. If there is a causal chain X > Y > Z > ... , then all the Hume-Edwards Principle does is explain the existence of a given entity within that chain (for example, X's explanation would by Y). What the Principle does not do, at least soundly, is explain the existence of the chain as a whole. Relating to the cosmological argument, even if some event within the universe is explained by another event, if we group all the events into a set, then we still haven't explained the set as a whole.

Con states that I 'must first prove that everything is contingent'.
But I have already given inductive proof; namely that we know all the fundamental particles within the universe (i.e the standard model) and we know these particles to be contingent. And as everything is made up of these particles then we have reasonable grounds to conclude that everything is contingent.


Next, the question is asked of why the necessary cause of the universe is a sentient, intelligent ruler.
But this does not matter! The aim of the cosmological argument is only to prove that a transcendent creator of the universe exists, it falls upon the ontological argument and the religious experience argument to assert that this creator is intelligent and sentient. Nonetheless, the fact that we observe the grand complexity and scale of the universe should suggest that its creator is intelligent. Just as if we observe a huge supercomputer we can conclude that its creator must be intelligent.


Con presents a syllogism that presumably aims to render the concept of contingency as at odds with an omniscient being.
The premise I dispute is P4:

'Definite certainty implies lack of contingency.'

But this premise is based upon the human faculty of certainty. Namely that we, as human beings, are uncertain of contingent entities or events, but this is only because we have limited intellect or epistemic ability.
Yet if a being is omniscient, then there is no contradiction in an omniscient being knowing with certainty about contingent entities. As human persons, we can know about contingent entities, although our certainty about such entities is limited because our finite intellect cannot infallibly foresee and recollect future and past contingencies.

But if the intellect is not finite, then we can be certain of contingent entities, because our intellect is sufficient to foresee and/or recollect the future and the past. Hence God could be omniscient and be consequently certain of everything despite contingency.

Ontological Argument

My opponent starts off by attacking the uncontroversial premise that God's existence in reality is possible, he claims it is a 'bare assertion'.
This is odd, because Con seems to believe that everything is impossible unless proven possible. Yet this is absurd. Being possible is the 'default' state, it can only be claimed that something is necessary or impossible if proven so, otherwise it is possible. Hence something is possible unless it is proven impossible.

More to the point, a metaphysical impossibility would contain a logical incoherency, yet none is present in God so we can negate the claim that God is metaphysically impossible.
Therefore, God is metaphysically possible.

Is existence a predicate?

Firstly, I think that I should highlight that existence is a positive property and this is demonstrated epistemologically, which in turn suggests that there are metaphysical grounds for supposing that existence is, metaphysically, a positive property. This is because our epistemology reflects metaphysical truths if we accept the veracity of our epistemic faculties. Hence we can give analogies of how we perceive existence, and then use this basis to inductively assert the positivity (or lack thereof) of existence in a metaphysical sense.

I did give an analogy, that an existent cure to cancer is greater than a non-existent cure to cancer, but Con made the valid argument that existence can be not great. For example; existent evil is less great than non-existent evil.
But this rebuttal does not refute the ontological argument, it merely prompts us to reclarify that existence is a positive property if it is possessed by an good thing.
This assertion is supported inductively by the fact that we epistemologically perceive existence to be a positive property, and hence there is inductive proof that existence is a metaphysically positive property. Con seems to maintain that there is no connection whatsoever between epistemology and metaphysical truths, yet epistemology is intrinsically geared towards reflecting metaphysical truths - so if something is demonstrated epistemologically then this implies that there is a corresponding metaphysical reality.

Ontological non-existence

In this apparent reversal of the ontological argument, Con attempts to prove that God actually does not exist.

But the problem with this argument is P3. This premise is unwarranted - the premise that God is non-existent in all possible worlds does not follow from the previous premise that God is conceivable as non-existent. I could also take issue with P1, as if my ontological argument is sound, then P1 is false. This is because my argument demonstrates the incoherency of the idea of God not existing.

Subjective existence

As Con insists that I stick by his definition of existence, I will do so.

But anyhow, something can still exist objectively in the mind. For example, if I imagine a house, then the idea of that house exists objectively in my mind. Either I am imagining it or I am not - the veracity of the statement 'I am imagining a house' is an objective, not a subjective statement. This is because subjective statements can have differing veracity dependent on individual judgement, but whether I am imagining a house or not is not dependent on individuals' judgements.

So, the first conclusion (C1) of the ontological argument is affirmed. God can exist objectively in the mind as an idea. The dichotomy remains of whether God only exists in the mind as an idea, or whether he exists both in the mind as an idea as well as existing in actual reality.


Con disputes whether omnipotence and omniscience are necessarily great.
The word 'great' entails a certain concept of magnanimity, which is to say that a 'great' being possesses good qualities in abundance. Hence a maximally great being would possess all good qualities in infinite abundance. Power, knowledge and love are intuitively good qualities (even if we cannot exactly pinpoint *why* they are), so we can cogently suppose that a maximally great being would be all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving.

Religious Experience

I extend this argument.

Naturalistic origin of the universe

My opponent's entire case here rests on the premise that gravity was preexistent to the Big Bang. He cites a respectable source, but his source does not say this.

Furthermore, the proposition that gravity was preexistent to the Big Bang demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what gravity actually is.

'In modern physics, gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Einstein) which describes gravity as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime.' (1)

This seems to entail that gravity is contingent on spacetime, as if spacetime does not exist, then curvature of spacetime cannot exist and hence gravity cannot exist.
Therefore, it does not make sense to propose that gravity existed before spacetime.

Con does go on to assert that some sort of 'gravitational space' existed before the Big Bang, but he does not give a source for this so it remains an unwarranted assertion. Furthermore, this 'gravitational space' would analytically have to exist within the universe, as the universe is defined as:

'all existing matter and space considered as a whole' (2)

So if the 'gravitational space' exists, then it would have to be within the universe by definition (as it is 'space'). And so we still haven't reached a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe.

Mass-energy equivalence

This argument does not work, as the question is regarding the source of all physical matter, so it does not matter that mass can become energy and vice-versa, because it does not explain why mass and energy exist at all.


For so long as the universe exists, it violates the conservation of energy because more energy exists now than did before the universe. So this would imply that the conservation of energy has been violated for nearly 14 billion years. Quantum fluctuations cannot be responsible for this.


I have already raised the problems with a 'gravitational space'.


I accept that naturalism is simpler than theism, but this does not refute theism at all.
For example, creationism is simpler than evolution, but this does not refute the latter. This because the evidence supports evolution, and evidence rightly supersedes simplicity.


Debate Round No. 3


First, I would like to apologize for forgetting to address the “Religious Experience” argument. I shall address it later in this round. I laud Pro’s arguments.

Cosmological Argument
Pro says that S has to be “contingent on” something. I understand this to be that if there is an entity x that is contingent, then there needs to be a non-contingent entity y that x is “contingent on”. This has to be demonstrated. I used the Hume-Edwards Principle to illustrate that if x, y and z are the only things in a location S, and x, y, and z need to be contingent, there need not be a non-contingent agency to support this existence. [1]

The Cosmological Argument merely attempts to demonstrate the existence of a non-contingent source, not necessarily a transcendent creator. Nonetheless, I shall accept this and refute the other arguments with regards to properties.

Pro must demonstrate, with proof, how God is beyond definite certainty limiting contingencies, as this is a logical conclusion. By Rule 3, Pro must show how God is beyond this, as Pro seems to imply that God is beyond human logic.

Ontological Argument
Ontological Nonexistence
“Being possible is the ‘default’ state, it can only be claimed that something is necessary or impossible if proven so, otherwise it is possible.” I beg to differ. It must also be demonstrated if something is possible. Pro assumes existence is the “default” state without citing any proof. As Pro did not provide proof of their derivation of ontology (eg. “It is possible for God to exist”), I need not provide proof either.

“I could also take issue with P1, as if my ontological argument is sound, then P1 is false.” Pro has not demonstrated how their ontological argument is sound. I shall demonstrate how mine is sound via. logical incoherencies.

If there are logical incoherencies, then the epistemological possibility of P3 further entails metaphysical possibility (i.e. the metaphysical impossibility of the existence of God).

Logical Incoherencies
By the definitions of this debate, God is an omnipotent being, i.e. God is able to perform any action, natural or supernatural. If a being is omnipotent, then it should be able to create a task that it is unable to perform. But as it is unable to perform that action, it is not omnipotent. If the being is unable to create that task, then it is not omnipotent. [2] Therefore, the property of omnipotence is a logical incoherency.

As demonstrated in the Cosmological Argument’s rebuttal, omniscience is a logical incoherency as it defies the existence of any contingency. [3]

In the rebuttals to the “Naturalistic Origins” argument, Pro says God is the finite source of the universe. This rests on the unproven assumption that God does not have a source. [4] While this may not be a direct logical incoherency, it is an incoherency based on the facts that it contradicts Pro’s arguments.

Thus, there are logical incoherencies. Hence, via. ontology, God is metaphysically impossible (though this is not an argument against the existence of God; this is merely to refute the Ontological Argument).

Positivity of Existence & Greatness
Pro must demonstrate the positivity of existence, as ontology entails that God being existent is positive. While God is benevolent by definition of this debate, Pro must prove the properties of God to demonstrate thus (eg. omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, “goodness”, et cetera). “The word ‘great’ entails a certain concept of magnanimity, which is to say that a ‘great’ being possesses good qualities in abundance. Power, knowledge and love are intuitively good qualities (even if we cannot exactly pinpoint *why* they are), so we can cogently suppose that a maximally great being would be all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving.” This would depend on a very specific definition of “good”. This brings the concept of definitive morality, which Pro seems to be arguing for. Pro must prove that morality is definite and non-relative, thus disproving ethical beliefs such as moral nihilism. Existence being a predicate entails absurd ontological conclusions, eg. if Narnia is epistemologically the greatest place conceivable, then it is possible that Narnia exists; from this, we entail the absurd conclusion that Narnia exists. If existence is a predicate, then Narnia existing is epistemologically possible, even if discounting extreme existential nihilism. [5]

Subjective Existence
Objectivity refers to non-influence of subconscious ideas. [6] Therefore, to have objective reality is to have physical reality. Having subconscious reality is an idea is non-metaphysical, epistemological and subjective by definition. God being in the mind as an idea is rational in comparison to God existing physically, which is the topic of this debate. A similar epistemological derivation can be performed in the example of unicorns:

P1. Unicorns are conceived as the most beautiful creatures (hypothetically).
P2. Positivity is epistemological being (by Pro’s arguments – I have presented my arguments against this).
P3. Epistemological being can be objective existence in the mind.
P4. Epistemological being can be objective existence.
C. Unicorns exist. [5]

Naturalistic Origin of the Universe
The Causal Premise
According to the Uncertainty Principle, the uncertainty in energy can extend to energy being uncaused for a short period of time, till the uncaused energy and gravity cancel each other, supporting the zero-energy universe hypothesis [at least allowing it to be logically consistent with existing laws]. [7] There is no proof that everything that begins to exist has a finite cause. According to Heisenberg and the theorems of Penrose and Hawking, gravity (as applied via. quantum field theory) did exist prior to the Big Bang. [8] The question Pro refers is, “What created the singularity/gravity?” While the causal premise has been disproved (via. a different interpretation of the BGV Theorem that discounts classical physics, the Penrose-Hawking theorems, and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle), a philosophical way to address this argument is: if God created the universe, what created God? [4] One may argue that God exists out of necessity by definition, yet that is not part of the definition of this debate, hence must be proven. This is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the Big Bang; the other energy attributes of the universe preexist without cause, thus disproving the causal premise. Also, via. Hubble’s Law, the constant expansion of the universe is illustrated with further uncaused emergence of energy. [9]

Mass-Energy Equivalence
This argument merely illustrated how mass can emerge from energy and, therefore, does not need a cause, allowing for a breach of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Time Uncertainty
The energy enhanced by the quantum fluctuations created a singularity that allowed for the increase in energy temporarily. After the Big Bang, the energy rose in level not via. quantum fluctuations, rather emerging without cause and violating the Time Uncertainty. [10] Furthermore, the Second Law of Thermodynamics allowed for a shift between gravitational time and entropic graduation, forcing a change in the Higgs field itself and accounting for the emergence of entropy following the Big Bang. [7]

Law of Parsimony
Metaphysical Naturalism vs. Theism
As previously illustrated, according to Occam’s Razor, the simplest explanation is a priori most likely in a set of options where either is possible and both have equal levels of proof. I have also demonstrated how the existence of God is a logical incoherency, allowing for Occam’s Razor to prevail in my favor and show that it is most likely that God does not exist.

Religious Experience
Physically, I have shown the logical fallacies in the existence of God. With this and the application of ontology, mathematically, the chance of lying/delusion by those that have had the visions increases greatly, merely because of the metaphysical impossibility of the existence of God. Therefore, my arguments still stand and the RE argument is refuted relying on the other arguments.

This also allows for my conclusion that mathematical arguments are untrustworthy without all viable and present data. When all data is present, a mathematical argument is trustworthy.

I would like to note that I have removed all complex mathematical formulas from this argument and kept it simple. If Pro requests, I can provide these formulas [Hubble's law, et cetera] in the next round. I thank Pro for an amazing debate. Pro's next argument shall be their last argument with conclusion, as they must waive Round 5.

[2] Savage, C.W. (1967). “The Paradox of the Stone.” Philosophical Review. 76:1. pp. 74-79.
[3] Craig, W.L. (1990). “Purtill on Fatalism and Truth.” Faith and Philosophy.
[4] Hawking, Stephen; Mlodinow, Leonard (2010). The Grand Design. Bantam Books. p. 172. ISBN 0-553-80537-6.
[6] “Objective.” The New Oxford Dictionary of English.
[8] Hawking, Stephen; Penrose, Roger. “Singularities in Homogenous World Models.” Physical Letters.17:246-247.



As this is my last round, I will conclude my arguments and do my final rebuttals.

Cosmological Argument


Con continues to misunderstand the argument. What he seems to think I am saying is:

'If X is contingent, then it is contingent on Y, where Y is non-contingent'

I do not say this, because it is evidently untrue.

Instead I say that if we have a set of every single contingent entity, then this set must be contingent on a non-contingent entity. This is because if it was contingent on another contingent entity, then this would contradict the definition of the set.

The fact remains that we can theoretically group all contingent entities (by considering the universe), and then conclude that the universe must be contingent on a non-contingent being (if we accept that all contingent entities are within the universe). This is because something can only be contingent on something external, otherwise it is self-causing (an absurdity).

So, all the cosmological argument does is prove that a non-contingent being exists. This being can quite readily be called 'God', as I will explain below.


A transcendent being is one that is outside space and time - and a being that is outside the universe fits this description. Furthermore, if the universe is contingent on a non-contingent being, then the most likely reason why it is contingent on this being is that it was created by it.
Ergo, the non-contingent being = the transcendent creator of the universe.


I don't say that 'God is beyond human logic', I just recognise that there are fundamental differences between finite human intellect and an omniscient intellect.

The reason why humans are rarely certain of contingent happenings is that contingent things change - they are likely different now than they were in the past and will be in the future. As humans can only experience the present, we are naturally uncertain of that which we cannot experience (i.e changes in the future and previous changes in the past).
In contrast, the cosmological argument concludes that God is transcendent (outside time and space). 'Outside time' being the operative phrase. If God is outside time then he can know about all points in time with equal clarity, so the fact that contingency causes changes does not affect God's certainty, unlike how it affects human certainty.
Therefore, God can be certain of all things in spite of contingency.

Ontological Argument

Ontological Non-existence?

Con claims that I assume that existence is the 'default state'. Yet I say nothing of the sort. What I did say was that possible existence is the default. This is because impossible existence entails a particular essential feature that causes it to be impossible. For example, there is an essential incoherency in a 'square circle' that renders it impossible. If there is no essential incoherency then something is possible.

Nonetheless, Con actually goes on to support the claim that there is an essential incoherency to God. I will refute his claims below.

Logical Incoherencies


Here, my opponent cites the paradox of the stone. This dilemma poses 2 options:

1. God cannot create a stone that he cannot lift
2. God can create a stone that he cannot lift

I would propose that the first is correct, but God not being able to create the stone does not render him non-omnipotent.
Consider the nature of a stone that an omnipotent being could not lift. It is a logical impossibility in a similar way to a 'square circle'. The definition of omnipotence entails that anything can be lifted by an omnipotent being, so something that cannot be lifted by an omnipotent being is a logical contradiction.

Now, consider the definition of 'omnipotent':

'able to perform any action'

This does not imply that an omnipotent being can do the logically impossible, because logically impossible feats are not really 'actions'. For example, creating a square circle is not really an action, because it is incoherent, and hence no such action exists.

Therefore, as creating a stone that God cannot lift is a logical contradiction, it does not qualify as an action, hence God being omnipotent does not require that he be able create a stone that he could not lift.


I have already justified that an omniscient being could be certain of contingencies without raising a contradiction.


Con states that I assume that God does not have a source. Yet this is not an assumption. In the cosmological argument I cogently concluded that the existence of contingent entities necessitates a non-contingent source. This is likely to be God. A non-contingent source is not contingent on anything, hence it does not require a source.

Therefore, God is not a metaphysical impossibility.
Ergo, He is possible.

Positivity of Existence & Greatness

I will attempt to reiterate why existence is a positive quality for God.
We have two options, as presented in C1 of the ontological argument:

A) God exists as an idea in the mind
B) God exists both as an idea in the mind, and in actual reality.

The only difference between A and B is that the latter ascribes a second property to God, which is that he exists in actual reality.
Now consider that God is, by definition, a 'good' being because he has multiple 'good' qualities such as omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence. In other words, God is good because he has these qualities.
But in scenario A, God cannot actualise the qualities of omnipotence, omniscience or benevolence (even if they are possessed conceptually), so God is not good in that scenario.
In scenario B, God can actualise these qualities, so God is good in that scenario.

Therefore, the God in B is better than the God in A.
Therefore, existence in actual reality is a positive quality.

Con postulates that there is no objective 'good'. Yet this contradicts our intuition, which recognises that concepts such as knowledge, power and love are intrinsically good. Their goodness is within their own essence. Moral nihilism would say that knowledge, power and love are not good, but this is absurd and runs contrary to what we intuitively know to be correct.

My opponent presents a parody of the argument, using Narnia as its subject. But the argument fails because Narnia simply isn't the greatest place conceivable. Nor is any other place, because what makes a place 'great' is subjective, and one could always conceive of a better place than that which they previously conceived of (for example, conceiving of just one more beautiful tree).
There is no 'intrinsic maximum' to places, yet there is an intrinsic maximum to beings - as there is a definite point at which nothing greater can be conceived, namely an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent being. Places have no definite point at which nothing greater can be conceived.

Subjective Existence

Here, Con says:

'God being in the mind as an idea is rational in comparison to God existing physically'

Which is where he concedes that God could exist in the mind as an idea, which is the very premise he attacked in round 2.

Con again presents a parody argument, but this argument does not even make grammatical sense so I can hardly be expected to refute it.
Take the following sentences:

'Positivity is epistemological being '

'Epistemological being can be objective existence.'

These firstly do not sound like they are making sense, and secondly, it is not defined as to what 'epistemological being' actually is. Nor is it an actual philosophical term that I can look up.

To conclude, I have sufficiently defended the ontological argument.

Naturalistic Origin of the Universe

Con's entire argument rests upon the baseless assumption that the universe has zero-energy. Furthermore, the zero energy hypothesis raises problems:

1. The hypothesis postulates that gravitational energy is negative. Yet this is incorrect, as all energy is a scalar quantity (1), so negative energy cannot exist.
2. It is a huge assumption that matter-energy is exactly equal to gravitational energy. Such an assumption is not sound science.

Furthermore, Con insists that gravity did exist before the Big Bang, but he only cites a paper that I cannot look at, so for all I know it does not actually support his claims. I am especially sceptical since the last source Con used to support this claim turned out to say nothing of the sort.

Next, Con raises the common objection: who created God?
But he forgets that my cosmological argument concludes that God is non-contingent, which entails that He does not require a creator.

Mass-energy equivalence

I agree that mass can arise from energy, but the initial energy is, as of yet, unexplained naturalistically.

Time Uncertainty

This argument fails because it asserts that there was a quantum fluctuation that occurred before the universe (time and space), whilst forgetting that quantum fluctuations can only happen within space (i.e within the universe).


This application of Occams Razor depends on the premise that the evidence for and against God are equal, yet I have given ample evidence that shows that there is more evidence for God than against God.

Religious experience

Con's rebuttal of this argument rests upon the presumption that God is logically incoherent, which is a proposition I have already refuted.
Therefore, the argument stands.

Furthermore, the actual argument is not mathematical, it just uses mathematics to symbolically express its veracity. The argument itself is not mathematical and instead draws evidence from the real world (peoples' experiences).


I would like to thank Con for a brilliant and intellectually stimulating debate, although I maintain that my arguments for God were stronger than his arguments against God.
As per the rules, I will not argue in round 5, but I would request that my opponent refrains from posting new arguments in round 5, and instead sticks to addressing my arguments.

Debate Round No. 4


I thank Pro for their arguments.

R1) Cosmological Argument

RIA. Contingencies

Pro has still not explained why a contingent object x has to be contingent on something. If x, y and z are contingent, then why can’t they be contingent without being contingent “on” anything? A set of objects can be contingent without the requirement of support from a non-contingent object. Secondly, if x, y and z are contingent, then the group of x, y and z, as the set S, does not need to be contingent. This is a logical fallacy via. the fallacy of composition, which states that if an agency is comprised of parts that share a property, the agency need not have that property. [1] An example of the fallacy of composition:

Hydrogen and oxygen are gases at room temperature. Is water (hydrogen+oxygen) a gas at room temperature?

The Fallacy of Composition

RIB. Properties

As illustrated in RIA, the universe need not be contingent, ergo, there does not have to be a non-contingent cause of the universe. If the universe has a non-contingent explanation, it does not have to be God, as God is not the transcendental non-contingent cause of the universe by definition. If Con ascribes a definition not stated in the debate, then Con must support this definition with proof.

An external cause violates physics. Quantum superposition states that a physical system exists in all its particular theoretically possible states simultaneously, but when measured or observed, it gives a result corresponding to only one of the possible configurations (via. Schrodinger’s cat). [2]

P1. An external cause will have an omniscient view of its nature via. its own properties.

P2. Ergo, the external cause observes all quantum superpositions.

P3. Observation collapses quantum superpositions.

P4. An all-observing (transcendental) cause would collapse all quantum superpositions.

P5. We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.

C. Therefore, an external cause cannot exist. [3]

RIC. Omniscience

As proven in RIB, a being cannot be transcendental, or it will violate the law of quantum superposition and Schrodinger’s cat. Therefore, God is not outside time, ergo, God is still subject to definite knowledge of contingencies within time, wherein the paradox stated previously still stands.

R2) Ontological Argument

RIIA. Ontological Nonexistence

Pro says possible existence is the “default state.” Once more, this leads to the logical incoherency arguments. I would like to note that, if there is a logical incoherency, then the reverse premise: “It is possible that God does not exist”, can be applied via. the same logic, thus refuting the ontological argument. Also, a hypothetical single-particle world would, for example, be simpler to conceive via. ontological non-existence, ergo, a multiple-particle world would follow the same using the principle of a quantum Hamiltonian.

RIIB. Logical Incoherencies

1. Omnipotence

An action is defined as “the fact or process of doing something.” [4] As even a logical impossibility is “something”, doing it is an action by definition.

The second part of the incoherency of omnipotence follows this premise:

P1. Omnipotence is a defining property of God.

P2. If omnipotence is impossible, God is impossible.

P3. Omnipotence is a logical incoherency.

C. God is impossible.

This premise is not to illustrate the impossibility of God, but rather to show that Pro must defend every property of God to defend God’s existence, which Pro denies by saying God is “omnipotent by definition.” Therefore, omnipotence is a valid logical incoherency.

2. Omniscience

I extend my RIC argument: “Omniscience”, which illustrates that omniscience is a logically incoherent property.

3. Pre-Creation

Pro is making a bare assertion that a non-contingent being does not need to have a cause. Even if God is a non-contingent source, God needs a source following Pro’s own logic.

RIIC. Positivity of Existence

“Therefore, God in B is better than God in A.”

This is a bare assertion, with no philosophical proof whatsoever. Here, too, it is pre-assumed that objective existence is a predicate, which Pro has not supported in any way. Furthermore, here, we can use Occam’s Razor to determine that, as God in A is making least assumptions, A is a priori more likely than God in B.

Secondly, Pro has still not proven how God is the greatest being conceivable. Therefore, P1 of the ontological argument still fails.

RIID. Subjective Existence

“Being”, here, refers to the continuous verb that is absorbed from the verb “be”. Pro is assuming, via. ontology, that epistemological being is objective existence, without supporting it with evidence. Metaphysical possibility is logical and physical possibility, not solely the former. Let me further illustrate this with another example:

Water =/= H2O

There is nothing epistemologically or even logically unsound about water not being H2O, but that is metaphysically impossible; similarly, ontology uses only epistemological means to assert the existence of God.

R3) Religious Experience

Once more, we take into account logical incoherencies to mathematically limit the likelihood of the existence of God with regards to religious experience. Furthermore, this argument entails absurd conclusions, e.g. experience of witnessing UFOs, etc.

R4) Naturalistic Origin of the Universe

RIVA. The Causal Premise

This depends on a very specific definition of the word “energy” to be strengthened. Energy is simply the capacity of a system to perform work. [5] There are two primary forms of energy. The first is the energy ascribed to via. mass-energy equivalence, a scalar quantity. The second is gravitational energy, which is often referred to as a “force”, but which, via. the physical definition of energy, is energy. Gravity is an attractive force and is a vector quantity, allowing for its energy to be negative via. the zero-energy universe hypothesis. [6]

“In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.” [7][8]

As I demonstrated in the previous round, the universe is homogenous, and, therefore, approximately uniform in space, allowing for the zero-energy universe hypothesis to be accurate. The zero-energy universe hypothesis was demonstrated in a 2009 study, via. a pseudo-tensor point of view. [9] If the net energy of the universe is/was 0, then the 0 net energy could have supported the creation of a gravitational singularity with a temporary quantum mechanical fluctuation, allowing for no need of a finite cause of the universe. [1o]

What powered the Big Bang?

RIVB. Time Uncertainty

A quantum fluctuation is a shift with matter-antimatter annihilation with a point in gravity in the vacuum state. This fluctuation will have begun as a gravitational wave [predicted by Albert Einstein in 1915, proven in 2014] that takes up gravitational negative energy to create a small ripple of spacetime, that would have allowed for the formation of particles and corresponding antiparticles as a mechanical fluctuation. [3]

The Gravitational Wave Spectrum

R5) Law of Parsimony

RVA. Metaphysical Naturalism vs. Theism

Once more, via. Occam’s Razor, we can conclude that the existence of God is not needed. In a comparison of metaphysical naturalism and theism, metaphysical naturalism is simpler, thus a priori most likely. As my opponent has accepted Occam’s Razor, this conclusion yields the unlikelihood of the existence of God.


Thus, I have refuted the Cosmological, Ontological, and Religious Experience arguments, have demonstrated how a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe is valid, and used Occam’s Razor (accepted by Pro) to show how the existence of God is improbable and unlikely. I request Pro to merely type “Round waived” in the next round. I thank Pro for an amazing, interesting debate. The resolution is negated. Vote Con.



[2] Gribbin, John (2011). In Search of Schrodinger's Cat: Quantum Physics And Reality. Random House Publishing Group. p. 234. ISBN 0-307-79044-4.


[4] “Action.” The New Oxford Dictionary of American English.




[8] Hawking, Stephen (1988). A Brief History of Time. Bantam Books. p. 129. ISBN 0-553-38016-8.


[10] Smith, Quentin (1988). “The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe.” Philosophy of Science. 55:1, pp. 39-57. (


Round waived.
Debate Round No. 5
221 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
Bump comment :P
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
@CorieMike, thanks again
Posted by CorieMike 1 year ago
Continutation: Logical Incoherencies

I believe the RE & OA rested strongly on these. Omnipotence I believe was not accurately defined due to a disagreement between logical and absolute omnipotence. Omniscience was the better argument. Con P4 and C2 in his omniscience syllogism I believe needed more justification (his sources were linked to a book I dont have access to). Con brought great new arguments in his final argument for the natural cause of the universe, however, as it was new and unable to be refuted, it would have been unfair to give a point either way.

All in all, Con deserved the win. Pro made it an amazing effort. A very constructive debate, especially if it made Envisage come back on just to vote.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
Thanks for the analysis.
Posted by CorieMike 1 year ago
I wanted to vote on this debate badly, unfortunately I have one more debate to do before I could vote on anything :( However, I have a great deal of respect for both debaters (seeing I once debated Philocat myself lol). That being said I wanted to add my two cents.

Pro"s P2 was the most contentious. There was no conclusive justification for contingency being a transferable property, as all justifications eventually run into Munchhausen"s trilemma and even justified belief isnt sufficient for knowledge (eg. the Gettier Problem). As the burden of proof was on Pro, I believe he had to justify all assertions. Con stated that Pro must prove that God isn"t himself contingent as according to Con"s definitions of omniscience, however Pro showed that logical omniscience can be compatible with contingency, hence, it was unnecessary. Pro states that the Set, S, contains all contingent entities and must depend on something external. The Hume-Edwards principle was a great argument against this, I think. Pro stated that self-causation was an absurdity, however, Con showed that the Hilbert"s Hotel paradox was veridical and not falsidical, and thus only appears to be absurd but can be demonstrably true (possibly inciting a cyclical causal chain).

Con argued that existence being a predicate was assumed (which I believe holds since Pro's inductive support wasn't self evident) and showed a contradiction between existence in objective reality and existence in the mind, according to his definition given (an argument for monistic idealism would be appropriate here I think). Pro showed that Con must prove God"s logical impossibility for his contention to stand.

Con also showed how relative the term great was and how intuition was subjective, therefore, omni-benevolence could not be accurately justified, even if it casts doubt on the veracity of our sense perceptions as well. Pro also never negated the possibility of nihilism's (existential or ethical) plausibility.
Posted by Philocat 1 year ago
Posted by TheodoretheMan 1 year ago
I vote pro because I believe that he had more reasonable arguments and more convincing arguments. I believe they made more sense and were much easier to understand. They both had good spelling and grammer.
Posted by Philocat 1 year ago
Thanks Envisage,

They were intended to be inductive arguments, as whilst arguments may deductively prove that God exists, they don't deductively prove that he has his defined properties.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
Thanks, Envisage.
Posted by Envisage 1 year ago
Con's arguments for God's non existance were a bit - meh. Since it wasn't made explicit what the relevance of a possible model of naturalistic origin has to do with the question of God's existance. While he did sufficiently show that the model is viable - I was waiting for the argument that furthers said model to negate. I never really saw it.

While I generally see what he was trying to push with his argument from parsimony, he didn't spell out the story he was trying to tell, and as a voter Ia m not at liberty to fill in the gaps.

So my position is a bit of a "meh" on who won the debate. I would have voted Con based on the burden of proof, but I don't think it's a clean win. Good job guys - was fun to read.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by AdithyaShark 1 year ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 1 year ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Honestly.... My head hurts after reading this debate. I feel that both sides made good arguments, but Con ultimately refuted Pro's claims. This was hard for me to read, as I am a Christian. I feel like that, If I had accepted and if I had a longer character limit, I could have made a couple of arguments to refute Con's rebuttals (but please don't ask me to do a "God Exists" debate; I hate them). Good debate guys. Since Con PM'd me concerning my previous RFD, I will expand on it in the Comments.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 1 year ago
Who won the debate:--
Reasons for voting decision: RFD will be in comments, I will vote sometime later today or tomorrow.
Vote Placed by That1User 1 year ago
Who won the debate:--
Reasons for voting decision: I will continue this tomorrow.
Vote Placed by Kozu 1 year ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: see comments