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

Science has rendered theism unreasonable

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 9/22/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,476 times Debate No: 62133
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (59)
Votes (3)




There is a chronic tension between agnostics and theists where both sides believe people who believe the other side are unreasonable. I often see names called by both sides. As one who believes both belief systems are reasonable, I intend to defend the position that modern science has not rendered theism unreasonable.

To win, Pro must show that modern scientific knowledge provides overwhelming evidence that there does not exist a god.
To win, Con must be able to reasonably address all arguments made by Pro.

god: a superhuman being or spirit with supernatural power over nature or human fortunes.
theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe.
unreasonable: not guided by or based on good sense.

Debate Structure:
Round 1: Debate definition by Con and opening arguments by Pro.
Round 2: Rebuttal to round 1 by Con and response/optional further arguments by Pro.
Round 3: Rebuttal to round 2 by Con and statement "no round as agreed" by Pro.

Judges will require 2500 Elo and a "select winner" option will be used.


Thanks Con.


Much of what I am going to argue is the attributes that Pro has argued in Theism are not compatible with what we know about science. Moreover, that the universe is what it would appear if it spontaneously arose naturally.

Note the definition of theism I am arguing against.

God: A superhuman being or spirit with “supernatural power over nature or human fortunes”
Theism: Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe.

The underlined portions will constitute my case, especially the creator aspect, as that is one of the principle beliefs of theists today. I will make 2 cases which are well-supported by science:

  1. 1. A supernatural power (God) cannot affect nature/human fortunes
  2. 2. A supernatural power (God) cannot be the cause of the universe

Either of these will render theism untenable as defined.

  1. 3. God cannot be the cause of the universe

The Universe Lacks A Cause

To argue that God created the universe also argues that the universe itself is caused by God (with God himself being the Efficient Arestolian Cause), however this runs into significant problems as causes can only occur if tensed facts exist. However such tensed facts can only occur within the A-Series of time (Presentism etc. being subsets), moreover science provides significant evidence against the A-Series of time, and significant evidence in favour of the B-Series off time (which is tenseless). To formulate:

P1. The universe is caused if and only if tensed facts exist

P2. Tensed facts do not exist

C. The universe is uncaused

Hence if the universe is uncaused, the clearly God couldn’t have caused it either. Premise 1 is uncontroversial in among time theorists, including cosmological argument proponents such as William Lane Craig, who affirms:

“From start to finish, the Kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived."[1]

So, the only point in contention is P2, which science affirms in earnest. The theory of relativity describes the universe in a four-dimensional ontology, with time itself being another axis in a four-dimensional plane. Affects we see such as length contraction and time dilation result from time being a tangable dimension, with sequential events approaching in a manner which violates the A-Series of time.

Moreover, these assumptions of relativity (that the speed of light is constant, and the laws of physics are the same everywhere, which is well-supported by observation) lead to successful predictions made by Quantum Mechanics & Quantum Electrodynamics, which have also been astonishingly successful (which would most likely have been impossible if the A-Series of time was true).

With this in hand, the universe itself never had a ‘beginning’ per say, but only a first-moment in time. The universe just exists as-is, with the past present & future all existing simultaneously, and hence cannot have been created.

Moreover, observations in quantum mechanics necessarily entail the existence of the future (and hence the falsehood of the A-Series of time), which I can formulate:

P1) If the A-Series of time is true, then retrocausality is impossible

P2) Retrocausality is true

C) The A-Series of time is false

P1 is uncontroversial, since Presentism literally requires only the ‘present’ to ever exist, by definition, to deny this is to deny the law of identity. P2 we know is true from results in delayed-choice in quantum mechanics. Moreover the predictions made by assuming retrocausality are fulfilled with tremendous accuracy so long as information is not transmitted.[4]

Quantum Eternity Theorum

The Quantum Eternity theorem is the result of plugging in energy values into the putative Hamiltonion of the universe, it finds that if the universe has a net positive amount of energy, that the universe itself must be eternal. As stated by Sean Carrol:

“Quantum Eternity Theorem” (QET) — under conventional quantum mechanics, any universe with a non-zero energy and a time-independent Hamiltonian will necessarily last forever toward both the past and the future

Moreover, if the net energy of the universe is zero, then time itself is emergent (and hence the A-series of time is false).

Here I can make a horned dilemma based on the Quantum Field Theory

P1) Either the total energy of the universe is 0, or >0

P2) If the total energy of the universe is >0, then the universe is eternal (and hence uncreated)

P3) If the total energy of the universe is 0, then time is emergent (and hence uncaused)

C) In either case God did not create the universe

God can not Interact with the Universe

We know from particle physics that for particls to interact, force-carriers are required. Gluons, W, Z- Bosons, Photons, The Higg's Boson and Fermions are all self-contained within the standard model, probably the most successful model in physics to date, with no exceptions found.

God, being immaterial would not be able to interact with the universe as he will intrinsically lack these force-carriers. Ergo it would be like a ghost passing through a table, it's for this reason why particles such as neutrinos, and perhaps Dark Matter are impossible to detect, since they hardly interact.[10

Universe Does Not Require God

Here I can made a modal argument for the redundancy of God, and further exemplify the relevant points as to why it’s more representative of a universe that arises naturally.

P1. If God is necessary, then spontaneous natural creation of the universe is impossible

P2. Spontaneous natural creation of the universe is possible

C. God is unnecessary

P1 is as sound as 2+2=4 if we assume ‘natural’ literally means ‘Non-Intelligently Caused’, and is the the modal formulation:

NG -> ~P~G

Axiom 1 & 2.

So the only room for debate is premise 2, which is increasingly affirmed by what we know of science. As I already affirmed in the quantum eternity theorem, the only way the universe could not be eternal is if the energy content of the universe is zero, this has the direct implication that the universe on average, contains zero energy, zero matter, and zero particles, and hence according the the laws of physics (quantum mechanics and thermodynamics), the universe that we see today could only have arisen naturally from a state of “zero energy, zero matter, and zero particles” if there is no ‘net energy’ in the universe today. Moreover such a universe can only exist if and only if the geometry of the universe is spacially flat.

That is exactly what we find when studying the cosmic microwave background, NASA scientists found that the universe is flat to within 0.4% error with most recent measurements, down from 15% in 2001.[5]

Furthermore, we know that empty space (absent of any energy, particles, photons) itself is instable, and spontaneously according the laws of quantum mechanics yields a bubbling brew of particles & anti-particles which annihilate on short-timescales (according to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle) which when gravity is applied, leads to particles of impunity. In other words, if you take empty space, and leave it, particles that persist will arise, which can easily account for the ‘stuff’ of the universe.[6,7]

Furthermore, space and time itself are likely describable in quantum mechanics (quantum gravity) given that time is likely another dimension, given this to be the case the laws of quantum mechanics allow for ‘spaces’ and ‘times’ to bubble and spontaneously appear. We know under these physics that such bubbles would almost instantly collapse (transient), and hence cannot yield our universe, unless these bubbles ‘inflated’, only then will these ‘bubbles’ of spacetime be long-lived enough to give rise to the universe today.

The CMB itself is tremendous evidence that inflation actually happened, the ‘blotches’ observed are naturally and readily explained by quantum fluxuations ‘blown up’ into large proportions and ‘froze out’ with a rapidly inflating universe, moreover the ‘flatness’ of the universe is very naturally explained by inflation (since the surface of a sufficiently large sphere appears flat).

Such evidence has lead to most physicists summizing that the universe is self-contained, and hence does not require an external cause of any shape of form.


So, entirely by the laws of quantum mechanics, and gravity, a universe sans time, space, particles and energy can arise from a state that lacks them. Moreover the mechanisms by which they occur are spontaneous, and not intelligent, which is clear-cut not a God. Here I will summarize with three points.

  1. 1. God could not have caused the universe
  2. 2. The universe could have arisen naturally
  3. 3. The universe appears exactly as we would expect if the universe arose naturally

Hence, theism in light of the evidence is untenable.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
  7. 7. “A Universe from Nothing” – L Krauss Ch. 9
  8. 8.
Debate Round No. 1


This is why I enjoy debating Envisage. I can always expect a challenging argument. Cheers to Pro for meeting expectations. According to the debate structure defined in round 1, I will only be given a rebuttal. I do not intend to make a positive case for theism in this debate. My role, as Con, is to show that none of Pro's arguments disprove theism. I will attempt to summarize Pro's arguments and address them in a point response methodology. I will state upfront that Pro and I agree on science, but not philosophy.

I) The Universe Lacks A Cause
My first contention is with Pro's claim that causes can only exist in B-Theory. There are both causes and effects in B-Theory. If there were not, we would not have a scientific method. Pro needs to clarify this statement as it is pivotal to the entire argument that the universe is uncaused.

Pro claims that the quote came from William Lane Craig in his source citation. However, the source doesn't contain anything about the Kalam Cosmological argument. The real source of the quote isn't given by Pro. It actually comes from which doesn't even mention Craig [1]. In reality, Craig is a huge supporter of the Kalam Cosmological Argument [2]. Pro's source shows Craig's support for B-Theory (see last paragraph).

Furthermore, Pro claims, "Furthermore, space and time itself are likely describable in quantum mechanics (quantum gravity) given that time is likely another dimension, given this to be the case the laws of quantum mechanics allow for "spaces" and "times" to bubble and spontaneously appear." By doing so, Pro claims that there may be causes external to our space-time continuum that caused our universe to come into existence. If there are unknown causes for the creation of universes, then it stands to reason that the cause may be an intelligent supernatural being that meets the requirements for theism. The idea that such natural exist is speculative, thus whether they are natural or super natural is also unknown. The theist is just as reasonable to assume that these causes are supernatural as the naturalist is to assume these causes are natural.

II) Quantum Eternity Theorem
It isn't agreed upon that an infinitely old universe cannot be created. Thomas Aquinas conjectured how it could be done by the creatio continuans doctrine [4]. Thus there is no logical contradiction. If time is an emergent property, then it is by the law of nature that time emerges. It is generally believed by theists that G-d created the laws of nature. If this were not the case, then the fine tuning argument (which I am not presenting as a positive case for G-d) wouldn't exist [5]. Furthermore, if time is an emergent property, then what must exist for time to emerge, and how did such come into existence?

III) G-d can not Interact with the Universe
Pro claims, "G-d, being immaterial would not be able to interact with the universe as he will intrinsically lack these force-carriers." Pro made a mistake in citing source 10 which doesn't exist. Source 1 exists, but doesn't support his claim. I'm left with no backing sources to the claim that G-d, having super natural power over nature, would lack force-carriers. There is an assertion of opinion, but no real argument.

Basically, the assertion Pro is making is that G-d would be incapable of causing miracles, because G-d has no force-carriers. A miracle can be defined as, "A surprising event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency." By that definition (from Google search: define miracle [6]), G-d would not require a force-carrier to act inside of nature, because a miracle is not bound by the natural law that requires force-carriers. Pro has not shown that miracles are impossible. John Lennox, a professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford and world renown philosopher, has a lot to say about the possibility of miracles, especially in response to modern science [7, 8, 9, 10].

IV) Universe Does Not Require G-d
I will agree that the universe does not require G-d, but I disagree that this indicate that G-d does not exist. I do not require a car to get to work, but I have been able to get to work by riding my bike. The fact that the universe does not require a G-d to create it is evidence that atheism is reasonable. It is not evidence that theism is unreasonable. A similar logical progression used by Pro can be turned on its head and used against atheism.
P1. Supernatural creation of the universe is possible
P2. If supernatural creation is possible, then the universe might have come from supernatural causes
C. The universe might have come from supernatural causes
Premise 1 is easy to prove. The super natural is not bound by the laws of nature, thus literally anything is possible including the universe in which we live. Premise 2 is obviously true. Many of the most well known scientists were deists [11, 12].

V) Conclusions
Although Pro has solid science and cosmology, the philosophical arguments given by Pro don't stand to the exhaustive reason given by theists for their beliefs. Specifically, Pro has not given any reason to believe that G-d cannot affect nature/human fortunes, and Pro has not given overwhelming evidence that there was not a G-d involved in the creation of the universe. These were the two claims on which Pro built a case. I have maintained the resolution that science has not rendered theism unreasonable.
Agnosticism is the logical default to a claim for which there is not yet evidence. As previously stated, I did not intend to build a case to show theism is reasonable in light of modern science, because I need not do so to show that it is not unreasonable. Pro continues to have the BoP.

Post Script
Because I have extra space, I thought it would be fun to point out that Pro claims that time came into existence at the Big Bang. The atheistic scientist he quotes, Sean Carroll, claims that this is not definitely the case [13, 14]. There was a debate between Sean Carroll and William Lane Craig on the topic of cosmology where William Lane Craig provided rational reasons for the possibility of a creator [15]. Sean Carroll attempted to disagree with Craig on the grounds that the universe is eternal [14].



Rendering Theism ‘Unreasonable’

In this debate I am here to demonstrate one or both of the following:

  1. 1. Belief in a God with “supernatural power over nature/human fortunes” is unreasonable
  2. 2. Belief in a God as the creator of the universe is unreasonable

I do not have to demonstrate each and every possible way that God could have created the universe is impossible in order to demonstrate belief that God did them is unreasonable, which seems to be the tac that Con is taking in this debate.

Even if I demonstrate agnosticism, it still renders theism unreasonable (as it’s a posivie belief)

Universe Does Not Require God
Con misunderstands the term ’possible’ in modal logic, which refers explicitly to objective, metaphysical possibility (entails a logically consistent world exists for the proposition). This is very different from epistemic possibility, which is simply a case of ‘for all I know X is true’, and says nothing about whether it’s metaphysical, let alone physical possibility.[5]

This is where the argument provides an enormous advantage in affirming atheism over theism, because the P1 for my modal argument is very likely to be true, because:

  1. 1. Physical laws objectively exist
  2. 2. The physical laws that objectively exist will inevitably yield our world (which I have affirmed so far scientifically)

Both are important because:

“Natural creation is metaphysically possible if and only if natural processes that allow for it actually exist”

The exact same consideration applies to theism

“Supernatural creation is metaphysically possible if and only if supernatural processes (God) that allow for it actually exist”

Now the problem is very obvious, while science readily affirms the former (and hence supports my premise), it clearly does not support the latter (and thus Pro’s P1 is unsound).

Ergo the premise:

“P2. Spontaneous natural creation of the universe is possible”

Is significantly more likely to be true than:

“P1. Supernatural creation of the universe is possible”

And in fact is the only one that is and can be supported by science.

To give an everyday example, if I drop a pen, it will fall. There are 2 possibilities (for sake of argument) for the causation of this falling pen:

  1. 1. Gravity
  2. 2. Some putative supernatural force

If we were in ignorance of gravity’s existence, perhaps is would be somewhat reasonable to consider the second option, but we so know gravity objectively exists, and provides the effects that we observe and measure. Therefore to postulate the redundant explanation without good reason to think it objectively exists is unreasonable. For similar reasons we cannot reasonably attribute lightning, and tsunamis etc. to supernatural explanations especially now that we have natural explanations for these, although we used to hold such beliefs. This speaks nothing to whether or not belief in supernatural explanations I reasonable in the first place.

Furthermore, Con concedes both premises of my argument, and hence the conclusion logically follows:

C. God is unnecessary”

The Universe Lacks A Cause

I think Con muddles up A-Theory of time with B-Theory of time, indeed it is A-Theory of time that must be true in order for the universe to be caused, in any case I think Con’s points are the same regardless so no credit is lost either way. I apologise for giving the wrong reference for the WLC quote.[1] I quoted WLC because he readily concedes this point despite being one of the most major proponents of the related cosmological argument. I already gave the justification within the quote which Con has not responded to (despite the source of the quote, the points within it stand on their own merits). If the A-Theory of time is false then that precludes the universe having a cause, and in fact renders such a question meaningless, since the universe would necessarily be contained by time, and time contained by the universe, they are synonymous.

The universe would be entirely self-contained, and would have never ‘come into existence’, since it exists fully developed as a tenseless four-dimensional block-universe, there would be nothing to explain about the universe anymore as it ‘just is’, for similar arguments that theists posit for God ‘just being’, with no beginning or end so much as a football has a beginning or end. At not point did the universe ever ‘not exist’.

Pro objection that this precludes all causes is false, because it doesn’t conclude what happens within the universe is uncaused, indeed we have both time and entropy, the two things we need to make meaningful statements about causation within the universe, but we don’t have those conditions ‘outside’ the universe.

“If the universe exists as a tenseless four-dimensional block then God could not (and therefore did not) create it.”

Pro has not objected to my refutation of the A-Series of time in any way, nor has he challenged the conclusion of the state of the universe hence at the very least the uncaused universe has been established in this debate.

Note that when I state the laws of QM allow for “spaces” and “times” to bubble and spontaneously appear, however this objection comes from the limitations of the language used to describe what is ‘happening’. In the ‘quantum vacuum’, there exists a multitude of ‘possibilities’ before observation which collapses onto a single possibility after. There are several interpretations of what is happening, the simplistic Copenhagen Interpretation and the Many-Worlds/Everett Interpretation. Sean Carroll explains: quantum mechanics, they’re (the possible worlds) right here, but in different possibility spaces (i.e. different parts of Hilbert space, if you want to get technical).“[3]

There is no ‘causal force’ or ‘influencing factor’ which causes these bubbles to appear, the bubbles just ‘exist’ as-is in the quantum vacuum (as ‘false vacuum’ pockets), uncreated, and only resolved once observed, as all possibilities ‘exist’ in a sense, especially in the many worlds interpretation.

Con seems to claim this demonstrates that space-time is caused by this underlying stuff, and hence is compatible with theism, but this is just false. Given that the quantum vacuum is not contingent on time, it itself is eternal, it was never caused, and very arguably negates any necessary being ‘causing the universe because:

  1. 1. So say the quantum vacuum as ‘caused’ is an incoherent statement
  2. 2. Self-contained models of it exists, which do not require external ‘causation’ or ‘contingency’

Logically conceivable worlds that are entirely self-contained are imaginable. Despite them not being our world they demonstrate that such worlds can exist without requirement of any external causation, and they ‘just are’.[2]

Quantum Eternity Theorem

If Pro is affirming that God created the laws of nature (which is dubious, because we have no reason to believe they are not fundamental), then he concedes this debate, since he concedes that God did not create the universe, as it’s by the laws of physics, and not God that everything in the universe came to be. Moreover the laws of physics, and especially quantum mechanics are indeterminate, and don’t produce determined results (such as THIS universe), hence this defence is a case of Con shooting himself in the foot, since the act of God creating the universe heavily implies a determined outcome. While it is taken out of context, the spirit of Einstein’s Quote is the same:

“God does not play dice with the universe” – Albert Einstein

To assert that God (a being with free will) created a mechanism which randomly popped out a rather random universe, in terms of its attributes, sublaws, etc is prima facie absurd. Yet that is exactly what our physics appears to show us.

Moreover Pro asserts some creatio continuans doctrine but doesn’t actually provide an argument, the only thing I find on this is that God is some ‘sustaining’ role in the universe, which is irrelevant to the creation of the universe (which is what I am arguing against in theism).

God can not interact with the Universe

Con pretty much ignored this argument, the standard model mandates force carriers in order for particles to interact, its for similar reasons why substance dualism is rejected by philosophers of mind, in order for anything to happen they must interact. From painstaking observation of the natural world we have comprehensively found the required mechanism by which things interact, and that is via. force carriers.

This model-building would be impossible were supernatural interaction possible, and was actually occurring, since we would have unexplained anomalies all over the place appearing in our particle accelerators, and the data would not fit the standard model at all. The theistic claim is that God interacts with nature somehow, yet our physics shows he cannot. To formalize:

P1. If non-natural interaction occurs, then fully natural models would never fully explain particle accelerator observations

P2. Fully natural models explain particle accelerator observations

C. Non-natural interaction does not occur

One good reason to accept P2 is that when searching for the Higg’s boson, it was only possible because we have modelled the interactions of particles, and what forms at certain energies with first-principle physics so well, that we were looking for a million-in-one discrepancy to fit the Higg’s boson, and we found exactly that.[4]

For P1, we would always have interference from supernatural stuff (whether it be God or something else non-natural), and would ironically be an effective method by which God would let us know of his existence if we did observe these anomalies spontaneously/intermittently appearing etc.

Final Word

I thank Jellon for an most interesting debate, I really wish we had another round, ah well. Best of luck in the voting!


  1. 1. p.184
  2. 2. 10:00 – 11:00
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
Debate Round No. 2


I will not be addressing Pro's contentions in chronological order, because somethings are logically related in my rebuttal, but not in his.
Round 1 quote: "unreasonable: not guided by or based on good sense."

Pro's first objection is that I misunderstood modal logic. The basis for this debate does not require or imply modal logic. Pro seems to be confused between the difference between unreasonable and logically disproven. Reasonable, by the definition of unreasonable agreed to in round 1, does not require absolute proof. Furthermore, most theists agree that there is an element of faith to belief in a deity, even if that faith is based on reason. For example, a person may have faith in a friend that they will accomplish a task promised to be done by that friend. That belief does not require formal proof, but it is based on good sense given a history of dependability shown by that friend. Pro seems to require absolute proof for theism in order to deem it reasonable.
Pro claims to have proven that the known physical laws will produce the observed universe. This is an enormous claim. In order to make this claim, one would need to be able to prove all general observations of the known universe can be explained by science, a task which Pro has not done here. Pro would not indeed have enough space to do so within the limits of DDO. Voters are encouraged by DDO not to let their bias influence their decisions, rather it should be based on the debate itself. In context of this debate, Pro has not begun to address the myriad of topics required to make this statement.
Pro also took contention with the premise that G-d exists, stating that super natural creation is only metaphysically possible if this premise is proven. However, Pro fails to prove this premise has been falsified by science.
Pro attempted to frame theism as a G-d of the Gaps belief by using the example given of gravity either being a natural force or a super natural force. The reason I appreciate this example is that Sir Isaac Newton was the one who is said to have discovered gravity, and Sir Isaac Newton believed in G-d [16]. In fact, there were a host of outstanding scientists who believed in science, because of their faith in G-d. John Lennox writes [17]
Indeed, it was belief in an intelligent Creator that convinced the great pioneers, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Clerk Maxwell, Babbage and many others that science could be done. C. S. Lewis put it this way: 'Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver."

John Lennox, would have us believe that even Sir Issac Newton himself would have attributed gravity to natural forces he believed to be put in place by G-d, not to super natural forces as Pro claims. I continue to agree that G-d is unnecessary for creation, although it isn't proven beyond a doubt. Even though this may be the case, that does not mean that G-d wasn't a causal agent in creation, which is also unproven. In short, Pro has given us reason why we don't need to believe in G-d but not a reason to affirm the non-existence of G-d. Thus, this claim does not render theism as being unreasonable.
Because there appears to be a misunderstanding between me and Pro, I will try to restate my position on the universe without a cause. Pro and I agree on one thing here, there must be an uncaused cause. Pro maintains that the universe itself was uncaused, while many theists maintain that G-d is uncaused. When we speculate about cause an effect, though, we do so from within the constraints of the universe around us, but not the constraints of what is beyond our universe, assuming there is such a thing. Pro's arguments seem to suggest that science supports the idea of existence outside our universe.
Furthermore, space and time itself are likely describable in quantum mechanics (quantum gravity) given that time is likely another dimension, given this to be the case the laws of quantum mechanics allow for "spaces" and "times" to bubble and spontaneously appear. We know under these physics that such bubbles would almost instantly collapse (transient), and hence cannot yield our universe, unless these bubbles "inflated", only then will these "bubbles" of spacetime be long-lived enough to give rise to the universe today.

Pro asserts that these bubbles exist outside of any external time which is used to further his idea that they are uncaused. However, Pro gave us no reason to believe this assertion. It is left as a philosophically biased assertion. It is reasonable that if indeed other universes bubble up into existence, then there is existence in these other universes outside of our own. If these is some reality outside of our universe, then that reality may include cause and effect events, which is also implicit in the above quote from Pro. In fact, the multiverse is often used as a counter argument to the Fine-Tuning Argument that the Laws of Nature are fine tuned for the ability of life to exist [18, 19]. In other words, if some of the universal constants (strength of gravity for example) were changed even slightly, either atoms wouldn't form, or planets wouldn't form, etc, such that no life could exist. One author puts it, "The multiverse theory seeks to replace the appearance of design by the hand of chance. [20]" So, it is possible for there to be causes in some reality outside of our universe. If this is the case, neither an A-Series or B-Series of time prevents a causal agent from creating our universe, whether intelligent (e.g. G-d) or unintelligent (natural forces).
Another way of looking at it is as follows. We know that cause and effect can only happen within the constraints of time. If there exist other realities outside of our universe that have cause and effect, then they too much have their own time independent of our universe's time. If they have their own time independent of our universe's time, then Pro's assertion that our universe cannot have a cause fails. The statement, "At not point did the universe ever "not exist"" is in reference to the time associated with our universe, but not the time associated with other universes/realities. Pro claims we do not have time and entropy outside the universe, but in fact we do not know what, if anything, is outside our universe. Pro did not give us reason to believe that there is no entropy outside our universe. Although I addressed this in my last rebuttal, Pro did not see the correlation to WLC's quote. Here I have expounded upon it several ways.
I agree that believing anything (redundant or not) without reason is unreasonable by definition. However, Pro has not claimed that there is no reason to believe in G-d, and as I have spent my efforts addressing Pro's arguments, I have not put forth a positive case for the existence of G-d. There are, in fact, reasons to believe in G-d. The atheist tends to not find them sufficient for faith. The fact that G-d cannot be proven does not invalidate the fact that there is reason to believe. In an American court, the jury is to determine if someone is guilty only if they believe there is no reasonable doubt. That does not mean that there is no reason at all to believe the person is guilty, or that belief in guilt is unreasonable. It only implies that it is not well proven, and there is a difference.
Renown atheist, Richard Dawkins, puts it this way [20]:
Now one might be forgiven for not realising this, as Dawkins is quite dismissive of the fine-tuning argument. He states the problem correctly: "Physicists have calculated that, if the laws and constants of physics had been even slightly different, the universe would have developed in such a way that life would have been impossible."... Dawkins concludes, "As ever, the theist"s answer is deeply unsatisfying, because it leaves the existence of God unexplained. A God capable of calculating the Goldilocks values " would have to be at least as improbable as the finely tuned combination of numbers itself, and that is very improbable indeed." He is left marvelling at the number of people, who seem genuinely satisfied by the "Divine Knob-Twiddler" argument, as he crudely puts it.

Dawkins himself affirms that Christians, at the least, have given reasons to believe in a G-d, even if they leave room for reasonable doubt.
I honestly don't follow Pro's logic in asserting that G-d creating the laws of nature is a contradiction. Pro has affirmed that the laws of nature, not G-d, created the universe. Under a belief in deism, which was commonly held by many great minds including Albert Einstein, G-d created the universe and its laws which set the universe in motion. Pro didn't prove that the law of nature could have created EVERYTHING we observe, thus his statement is an assertion of bias, not fact. There was no statement that G-d created a random universe, as Pro claims.
Finally, Pro continues to assert absurd claims by stating that if the super natural interacted with the natural, we wouldn't be able to do science because of the interference. In this, Pro is also claiming that the super natural WOULD interfere in science experiments if it COULD do so. Science is based on repeatable experiments. If a super natural agent did influence our universe, we would not be able to go rerun the experiment. In fact, when someone dies, we use forensic science to determine how, and that is based on logic and reasoning. It isn't perfect science. Science can show how the natural interacts with itself, not how the super natural interacts with the natural.



Thanks for a great debate Jellon! Over to the voters.
Debate Round No. 3
59 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jellon 2 years ago
I agree, but most voters I've encountered are atheists. It would likely be just as bad if most voters were theists. I'm not insulting atheists; I'm pointing out humans weaknesses that make this setting unreasonable.
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
I only addressed the 'unreasonable' portion of the resolution, some of the arguments were stronger but the resolution was worded in such a way that it made my job inherently easier (e.g. Instead of 'Science Refutes God'h). In any case I think this debate was an objective win for me but mostly for the reasons Uchihi put forward (dropped arguments etc).

I don't believe there is any more inherent bias for the atheist position than the theist position, although it's clear that atheists generally do win more of their debates in these sorts of settings. Given that I have debated both sides many, many times I would argue it's because the arguments for theism are just bad, but that's my opinion.
Posted by Jellon 2 years ago
If there was a debate, "Science has not disproven the multiverse hypothesis", voters would not likely require pro to prove that the multiverse hypothesis is true. But because voters here are bias against theism, they require pro to prove the existence of G-d on this topic. It's just not fair to debaters like me. I didn't claim to be able to prove G-d, just simply that science has not ruled it out. Simply put, science is neutral on the topic of super-natural beings. If super-natural beings existed outside the laws of nature, science could not address them, because science only deals with nature. Two of the voters here showed extreme bias in their votes. I'm getting so frustrated with DDO.
Posted by Jellon 2 years ago
I figured out that I need to start debating in favor of atheism in order to win debates. It sure worked when I went from debating against evolution to debating in favor of it. People vote with their biases. It's retarded. The only vote I respected here was Urchiha. He convinced me I should lose the debates. The last voter disagreed with himself in his rfd.
Posted by debate_power 2 years ago
Science cannot explain how things exist in the first place, so theism, or the acknowledgement of unreasonable things, seems more reasonable to me.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
RFD part 2.

This is demonstrated by using complicated basic action and reaction examples. Force carriers.... didn't expect to see that happening in the debate but none the less the point is very valid. As such the supernatural is unable to interact with the natural but this is counter to what theism teaches us.

Con counters with "I'm left with no backing sources to the claim that G-d, having super natural power over nature, would lack force-carriers." But that is a shifting of the burden of proof, as the supernatural needs to be proven, science has not proven supernaturalism so this argument is flawed.

Universe Does Not Require God.
Both opponents argument hinge on previous arguments. As such I have treated this argument together with the other arguments. Just so you know I am not ignoring it and being disingenuous with my vote.

Con's last round.

I feel cons last round needs special attention. To me, it seems way off topic, and type of special pleading, i.e. Newton was a theist. It went into logic and with no space for Pro to respond was a little unfair. Additionally, none of Pros contentions were dealt with. In fact it seems at this point that Con is agreeing with what most of Pros arguments, which effectively had the win to Pro anyway. Here are some examples "Science can show how the natural interacts with itself, not how the super natural interacts with the natural." and " I continue to agree that G-d is unnecessary for creation, although it isn't proven beyond a doubt." These are part of the proposition of this debate and I am finding a hard time justifying this last round with no rebuttal from Pro allowed.

The debate goes to pro.

Lastly, what I did like was that using the examples (either intentionally or not) Pro showed that physics is so intertwined that if god cannot fit into one part god can fit no where.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
RFD part 1.
Universes lacks a cause.

Showing that either way the time theories dismiss (B-time theory is obvious, the A theory a little more complicated) a god essentially is a very strong case that Con needs to rationally defend. As Pro pointed out the A time theory is the crux (for Kalam) and the A-time theory can be proven to be false logically, as there has to be a future which can be determined by past causes.This was also shown to be true using the Quantum Eternity Theorem, which is a difficult argument to defeat as it is tried and tested. I will just point out here this argument went untouched scientifically, as all Con tried to do was use fancy philosophical footwork to get around it. This did not help Cons case as the science which proves the results reasonable is what needs to be defeated, i.e. counter examples, theories and results.

Con counters that in fact the B time theory is needed for Kalam and that Pro has deceived us. I checked the sources and the paragraph suggested and I have to say Con is the dishonest one here. I quote Craig "In conclusion, therefore, I think that we have good reason to believe that if a temporal world exists and an A"theory of time is correct, then divine timelessness is incompatible with divine omniscience and, moreover, that if, as I claim, the arguments for God's atemporality are at best inconclusive, it is divine timelessness which ought to yield pride of place to divine omniscience." Here Pro says he cited wrong, am I going crazy? Seriously, I need to know. Regardless, Pro rightfully points out this A-theory of time argument has not been rebutted and as such Pro still holds the argument.
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Incoherent questions are incoherent....
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
Quote your answers to me, and I will debate you here and hear no rebuttal, for you will be unwritten.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: In order to win, Con had to fully refute each of Pro's arguments in favor of the resolution. While the entirety of the debate was a fascinating read, I will be focusing only on one of Pro's arguments, which Con did not successfully mitigate, thus warranting the Pro vote-- the argument from B-Theory of Time. While I don't think Pro did a particularly thorough job of dispelling A-Theory, Con simply neglected to address that refutation, instead pointing out that causation still exists in B-Theory. Pro successfully overcame this by noting that his claim was never that causation doesn't exist, but that the universe in particular cannot have a cause according to B-Theory because it is self-contained, which Con almost seems to drop this in his final round. I would have liked to do a more extensive commentary on how the other arguments in the debate played out, but given the BOP structure, Pro's time argument alone wins him the debate. Great job to both debaters!
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins. This is due to several reasons. First, according to the definition of unreasonable: "not guided by or based on good sense," Pro presented the greater preponderance of evidence. Not only was Con unable to prove God's existence, but also was unable to show God as the cause of the universe. Now, while I understand that he merely had to reasonably address all arguments made by Pro (which is BS, btw), he failed to do so. This was seen when he conceded the point that there is no proof to God being the creator nor proof of him being the cause. This is important because by not being able to do so, it allowed Pro to show that God/creator wasn't the cause. If the creator wasn't the cause, then the very name given is a contradiction. This is wholly unreasonable as contradictions are not reasonable. Con additionally failed to show the "sense" in believing in a creator that can't actually be proven as the creator. While I give sources to Con, arguments go to Pro, and therefore Pro wins.