The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

The Big Bang had to have been started by a designer.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/31/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,060 times Debate No: 39772
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




Round one is for acceptance only.

I will not be arguing for any specific creator such as the Abrahamic God. I will be taking a deist standpoint and argue that a general creator had to have induced the Big Bang, if it is indeed true as a scientific theory. We do not know what or who the creator is, all the argument is, is that an all powerful designer started everything. Thank you in advance!


I accept.

I do not see any reason that a creator is necessary for the big bang, taking that a creator means a conscious force which actively caused the big bang.

I will wait for pro to post his arguments, then refute them to the best of my ability.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting my debate.

I would like to start off by saying that the burden of proof is on both of us. This topic is something a schoolboy can ask and observe and is very commonly asked like the "What made God?" question. Let us look at the Big Bang theory and analyze it briefly:

About 13.8 billion years ago, the universe was condensed into a hot, dense, small, state. It suddenly began rapidly expanding. After that first expansion, the universe cooled down to allow the formation of particles, atoms, and molecules so that it could begin to form what we know today as our present universe, filled with galaxies, stars, planets, and most possibly life.

This theory is most definitely accepted within the scientific field. I myself accept it as origins of the universe as well, but only under strict conditions that it was created out of an intelligent mind. There are reasons that it must have come out of an intelligent mind. The ancient Greek philosopher, Parmenides (, stated

"Something cannot come from nothing, therefore nothing cannot exist."

It must be assumed at one point or another from this theory by all that before this condensed state of matter that there is either:

A: Literally nothing
B: This condensed state was eternal or has always been there.

Both of these explanations lean towards the assumption that there has to be a creator.

If there was nothing before the existence of this state of matter, then what could have set off something to have created this condensed jumble in the first place? If there is nothing present, there will always continue to be nothing. The term, "nothing" is a confusing one for us humans because we have never experienced what "nothing" is like. We are so used to being around existent materials, that our mind cannot comprehend nothing well enough to imagine it. However if there is nothing, then something cannot come from it as Parmenides has said. It is illogical to believe that the fundamental building blocks of everything we see, spawned out of no existence.

For the second explanation, we must assume that if this condensed state has always been there, then a creator has always been there.

When people ask me where God came from, I usually tell them that God is eternal and has always been there. If it is viewed as the first condensed state of matter to be the origion of the universe, and it is explained that it has always existed, then I make the same case for a creator. I cannot explain that creator or discuss the motives, but we must use logical reasoning and philosophy rather than looking for physical evidence in the discussion of the origin of the universe.

We as humans appeal to our worldly senses of having to see, touch, hear, smell, or taste for evidence. But I say now, let us look at the plausible chances of there being no creator that has started the miracle of life and the universe. I do not make a case for any creator, I will say again, just the case for general intelligent design.



Thank you for your response!

Unfoundedness of First Premise

In order to refute your argument, I must first introduce a few philosophical terms which you may or may not be familiar with.

Creatio Ex Materia- "Creation out of Material"

Creatio Ex Materia refers to anything that has been created from pre-existing stuff.

Creatio Ex Nihilo- "Creation out of nothing"

Creatio Ex Nihilo refers to anything which has not been created from pre-existing material.

The first premise you use to make your argument is "Something cannot come from nothing.", as stated by the philosopher Parmenides.

As you have stated previously, humans have absolutely no experience with things created Ex Nihilo. Humans only have experience with things created Ex Materia; from pre-existing material. Therefore, how can we apply our logic based around things created Ex Materia to things created Ex Nihilo? We don't know that something can't come from nothing, because everything that we have observed to have a cause has been a material cause, from things previously existing.

To illustrate this, we know that a sculptor made a statue. But did he bring the matter for the statue into existence? Absolutely not. Everything we experience around us has been created Ex Materia. We have absolutely no experience with things created Ex Nihilo (Except perhaps for physicists, but I will get to that later), so your application of inductive logic based on the world around us, where everything has been created Ex Materia, is not logical.
In order for your argument to work, you must support your first premise, that something cannot come out of nothing, which you have failed to do as of yet. You have only stated it as if it were a fact.
Furthermore, relativity, upon which your argument is based (big bang) is incompatible with quantum mechanics, and breaks down at the infintesimally small scales such as the singularity at the beginning of the universe.

David Humes, who knew nothing of relativity or quantum mechanics, illustrates this quite well:
"But when we look beyond human affairs... When we carry our speculations into the two eternities, before and after the present state of things; before and after the present state of things; into the creation and formation of the universe; the existence and properties of spirits; the powers and operations of one universal spirit, existing without beginning and without end; omnipotent, omniscient, immutable, infinite, and incompre|hensible: We must be far removed from the smallest tendency to scepticism not to be apprehensive, that we have here got quite beyond the reach of our faculties."- David Hume

Everything we know about modern physics suggests that our intuitive notion of "what makes sense" no longer applies in these circumstances.

Why an Intelligent Designer?

You have not made any arguments yet as to why you believe that this intial cause of the universe must have been an intelligent designer.
Why couldn't it have been some natural cause that led to the creation of the universe? First cause to god (even without a particular denomination) is quite a big leap.
Cosmologists speculate about oscillating universes with multiple big bangs, or even that our "local" unvierse could be part of some greater "global" universe; we simply don't know. Only that these could be possibilities that can't be ruled out.
Of all the things that could have been the initial cause of the universe, what allows you to eliminate all other possiblities than an intelligent designer, especially when we have no evidence that a conscious mind can exist without a physical substrate.

The beginning of the universe is, by all means, a scientific question, so it should be physicists who tell us how it began, and not apologists with unfounded conjecture.


I have made arguments showing that pro's first premise is invalid, and called into question why pro's first cause must have been an intelligent designer.

In order to win this debate, pro will have to:

1. Defend the first premise of his argument
2. Prove that it must have been an intelligent designer, and not another cause for the beginning of the universe

Debate Round No. 2


Thank you to my opponent for making many fair points and an excellent rebuttal. Never have I seen a fifteen year old (I assume you are) respond so efficiently.

I would like to point out that my opponent is trying to think about the concept of "nothing" and "Ex Nihilo" too seriously. Both of these terms are self-explanatory. I find it a little silly that he is trying to explain a lot about "nothing." If there ever was a time when nothing at all existed, then there would be absolutely nothing today. It is an axiomatic truth that if nothing exists, then “nothing” will be the case -always, for nothing simply remains nothing - forever! That is a very, very obvious thing to know. Nothing plus nothing equals nothing. "Nothing" and "something" are mutually exclusive terms.

Since it is the case that something now exists, one must conclude from that basis, that something has always existed in the first place. This IS the proof. Visual proof cannot be given, nor proof via hearing, touching, smell, nor taste. Proof via logic and reasoning is what the pudding actually is. If you were to trace the origins of something over, and over, and over, there would be no end to it if there were NO intelligent designer. This would be an argument of giving something to be eternal yet again, which could also be used in an argument for a designer.

However, The most reputable scientists in the world concede that “matter” is not eternal. In his book, Until the Sun Dies, Dr. Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and himself a professed agnostic, describes his perception of the initial creation of the universe. He speaks of that moment when “the first particles of matter appear” (page 21 if you want to know) and prior to that moment, matter did not exist. Even IF you traced it up to the very "first Big Bang".(

The belief that there have been multiple big bangs and universes is irrelevant. This would be just extending the process and origin tracing further. No matter how long our universe has been around, or other universes, there is a beginning. There is not one trace of evidence that the universe has existed forever. And the fact that it has a beginning with no existent of any form of matter beforehand, is proof of a general creator that started this process that eventually formed in into the universe and existent matter that we are familar with today.

In logic, the “law of the excluded middle” states that a thing either is, or it is not. A line either is straight, or it is not straight. Same applies with matter. It is either here, or it isn't. There is no inbetween. If it isn't, then nothing will be of it, nothing will come from it, and it will forever remain that way (if you can even classify something nonexistent as "it." This topic hurts me to think about!)

This is my reasoning for a designer. My opponent cannot disprove a creator to me, as science is incapable of disproving the existence of anything. Science describes to us what is there and how the beauty of it works, not how it arrived here.



I am sorry for my late response; I'll try and respond more promptly next time.Thanks for your compliment. However, you are only three years older than me, so I wouldn't be too surprised with what I can output.

In the third round, you have simply repeated your first premise; that you believe that something cannot come from nothing, and therefore, nothing will always lead to nothing, claiming it as an axiomatic truth, and obvious. In the second round, I demonstrated that this premise is unfounded, as the only things we have experience with are created ex materia, and therefore cannot apply the same logic to things created ex nihilo. You have not yet done anything to defend your first premise from my demonstration of unfoundedness other than restating it.

As for your use of Until the Sun Dies, this precisely proves my point that the universe was created ex nihilo, and not ex materia. Whether the matter in our universe always existed or not is irrelevant to our debate. We are discussing the causes of the universe, and why you believe it must be an intelligent designer.

However ridiculous it may seem to you of the entire universe coming from nothing, claiming that a creator came from nothing and created the universe does nothing to reduce the absurdity. In fact, it only increases it. Which seems more likely to you; at the rudimentary level of the universe, something extremely complex (a mind?) existing, or instead, a very basic, unconscious natural system which we are unaware of?

Multiple big bangs, universes, and other natural causes are simply other possibilities for the beginning of the universe than an intelligent designer. You are attempting to prove that an intelligent designer created the universe, so you must eliminate all other possibilities of natural causes that could lead to the universe as we know it in order for your argument to hold. You must prove why it definitely must be an intelligent designer, and not anything else.

In response to "This would be just extending the process and origin tracing further.", I ask you:

If you speak of these other possibilities as extending the train of causality, what exempts an intelligent designer from extending the process of origin tracing, and not an intelligent designer (one of the many possibilities)?

It is true; I cannot disprove a creator to you. That's not the point of this debate; you are trying to prove an intelligent designer to me, and I must refute your claims. A creator is, indeed, an unfalsifiable hypothesis, along with an infinite amount of others (Like Bertrand Russell's Teapot:'s_teapot). The simple fact that it cannot be disproven gives it no merit, and is hardly the point of this discussion. You are trying to prove to me the existence of an intelligent designer as being the initial cause of the universe, which is, by all means, a scientific claim.

The definition of science is:

"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Science is a lens through which we view everything in a logical, empirical way. The beginning of the universe is no exception to this. Science is the study of what is, how it got there, and how it behaves. You are attempting to base your claim on logic, and observations of the world, so it is a scientific claim, and dismissing other scientific truths is not consistent.


I contend that Pro's first premise is unfounded, and he has done nothing so far to defend it other than state the premise as an axiomatic truth.

Further, for Pro's argument to work, he must disprove all other possibilities (natural causes) and prove why it must be an intelligent designer that caused the universe, and why an intelligent designer is free from the chain of causality, but not the natural causes he claims are an extension of this train.
Debate Round No. 3


Thanks for your response, it has been a very productive debate:

I must respond to you stating that I have not clearly defined my first premise: Something cannot come from nothing therefore nothing cannot exist. I must disagree with you and say that I have explained it as thoroughly as I could. The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. What exists in nothing? Well, nothing. I've explained this already and I would be repeating myself. It it is ridiculous to think that something could possibly erupt from a non-existent form. The very effect of the beginning of the universe must have an adequate cause, and so on and so forth. One piece of evidence is the fact that the universe exists. To explain this fact, we are faced with a couple of choices. Either something came from nothing, or something has always existed. If the latter is true, then either matter is eternal or mind (intelligence) is eternal. Which seems more plausible? Inanimate objects and forms being eternal, or a mind that put it here? It is the simple principle of cause and effect.

The laptop I am typing on did not pop into existence. An intellectual mind created it. The statue outside of my college dorm window did not pop into existence. It was created by intellectual minds. This universe is no exception. Just because it is bigger than us, and not created by us, does not exclude the possibility that something put it here. Something far bigger than our imaginations. Maybe our universe is the equivalent of a cell? Floating around in something much bigger, and that something is travelling in something infinitely bigger than ourselves as well. Can we prove that? No. Can we disprove that? No.

The questions posed by the Big Bang do not all go away even if people make up stories about oscillating universes and multiple universes. We still have to confront the fact that all the talk about universes presupposes the existence of an even more fundamental reality, namely the existence of physical laws governing the course of the universe. What are these laws, and where do they come from? What determines them? ( This question about law increases the mystery. We need to ask, not only about the galaxies and the stars, but about the laws. The galaxies and the stars can be traced back to the concentration of energy in the Big Bang. But what about the laws, which are just as essential to our understanding? In a sense they are even more essential, because even the postulation a universe or universes before the Big Bang presupposes the existence of these laws, which govern all time. This is why a creator is to be assumed to exist. Where does the complexity of our universe come from? A mindless, inanimate singularity? Or a creator that put forth the motion of this singularity that set us into our positions today?

I am sorry that I may not answer your question in the previous round. The question seems redundant, and I believe you should reword it differently. Since this is the last round feel free to message me and I'll be happy to reply. Once again, I apologize. I read it a few times and could not make sense of it. Perhaps it was my brain - too late at night typing this and class in the morning! Ah!


-The continuous tracing of origins would be far too vast to simply determine that a jumbled mess of matter created everything we see today. Yes it IS science, but not JUST science. There is something bigger.

-There is no evidence that the universe has existed forever. If it has, then the concept of eternal can be used in the argument for a deity.

-Nothing is nothing as Parmenides has stated. Something cannot come from a non-existent state. It doesn't make sense, and trying to make sense of it is pointless.

-There are many other explanations to this universe's origins besides it being always there and not being there before the Big Bang, but that does not exclude the possibility of a creator at all. This creator is supposedly outside of the tiny perspective of human sense and scientific explanation, and has overseen everything that we are familar with today.

-This is not an an argument for any specific god, but rather a generic intelligent designer.

Thank you to my opponent for such a thoughtful debate. You have proved yourself to be intelligent and thoughtful and though I disagree with you, I must say you use many valid points in your rebuttals. Farewell!



Once more, you have no base upon which to claim that something cannot come from nothing, because while this might not make intuitive sense, everything around us has been created ex materia, and so applying the same intuitive logic to things created ex nihilo (the universe) is not consistent. As you and I have said before, humans (besides physicists) have no experience with things created ex nihilo. Therefore, any claims we make on causation of things created ex nihilo (something cannot come from nothing) is unfounded.

Because the first premise of your argument (Something cannot come from nothing) is invalid, your argument fails to work from the start. However, even if we assume that your first premise is true, there is nothing to indicate that an intelligent designer is more likely the first cause of the universe than some other cause. You may claim that something coming from nothing is absurd, but saying that a creator came from nothing to create everything from nothing does nothing to reduce the absurdity. In fact, to me it seems more likely for a basic, natural force to be at the root of everything than a complex mind. Considering that we have no evidence that a mind can exist outside of a physical substrate, it seems to me much more plausible that at the rudimentary level of everything, an unconscious, basic force to be existent rather than an intelligent mind existing at such basic levels. What could possibly lead to this? Why would such a thing exist at the basic levels of everything, especially given that complex arrangements of matter are needed for minds, at least as we know them.

Saying that a conscious mind is at the base of everything is neither provable nor disprovable, and therefore has no merit. It is just as likely that Bertrand Russell's teapot, a pink unicorn, goblins, elves, whatever you want to call it, was at the base of the universe, since none of these are provable or disprovable either.

Claiming that causes other than an intelligent designer extend the chain of causality makes an intelligent designer no more likely, as an intelligent designer too, would extend this chain. If you claim the designer is eternal, why couldn't any of the other causes be eternal as well?

Comparing the universe to a laptop is not a good analogy, because while we do know that a laptop was created by an intelligent mind, we don't know that the universe was created by an intelligent mind. That certainly doesn't exclude the possibility, but that's hardly the point. you are trying to prove the existence of a creator, and it not being provable or disprovable earns it no merit.


I conclude that while an intelligent designer is certainly possible, it is no more likely to exist than other possible causes of the universe, and any conditions you may wish to place on the designer or other causes (Extending the origins), must be applied to all possible causes, so an intelligent designer is no more likely.

As I have pointed out, a designer may even be less likely than other causes due to a designer's complexity, and the incompatibility with the basicness of existence.

I therefore contend that the big band must not have, but could have been caused by an intelligent designer. It isn't required, and certainly isn't provable.

My Thanks to the Pro

I apologize if I came off as rough or harsh during this debate. I simply have no sense of social etiquette when I am focused on deconstructing an argument. I thank you for this debate, and have enjoyed in immensely.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
(continued from RFD)
Because CON did not challenge the shared BOP, they could not simply refute what PRO said and expect the victory. However, he did offer countering theories and PRO merely dismissed them. While they were not well supported, that were something that could be weighed against PRO's for a debate. PRO's arguments were adequately refuted by the "we cannot know the nature of nothing since we have only study things" (that is a summary, even though I used quotes). PRO had no counter for this other than re-stating his argument. While CON did mention quantum mechanics, it would have been better for him to dig deeper into them for strong refutation of PRO (that matter has been observed being created and destroyed via annihilation). While this wasn't done, his case was strong enough to allow his mild alternatives to win the arguments points.
Posted by Greematthew 3 years ago
@TrueScotsman: I am aware. I will address that in my next round. I used the two classical stereotypical arguments in the 2nd, round.
Posted by TrueScotsman 3 years ago
I always find it interesting how people have to create the false dichotomy of 1) absolutely nothing and 2) an eternal state of being. Perhaps they should go listen to what theoretical physicists are saying about the matter, rather than presenting fallacious arguments.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Skeptikitten 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro not only committed several glaring logical fallacies, but he also provided absolutely no support to his claim that an intelligent, all powerful designer MUST be responsible for the universe. Rather, he made several appeals to personal incredulity, repeated his same argument in pretty much all rounds, and refused to address Con's rebuttal that Pro did not rule out a multitude of options other than an intelligent designer.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I am giving the spelling and grammar to Pro more for a formatting issue with Con's R2. Words were cut in half at the end of each line. Though we could technically say that is a bunch of spelling mistakes, it was likely because it was pasted from word or some other program and didn't mesh well. Now for arguments. Well, lets start with sources first. Since the vast majority of sources were wiki articles to who the scientists were and not anything to support arguments (there was only one sourced definition from R3) I have to award no source points. Okay, now to arguments. During R1, I thought Pro dug himself into an amazing hole that he had no chance to get out of by requiring the designer to be all powerful AND conscious (the conscious was stipulated by Con that Pro did not challenge). However, Pro also stated that the BOP is shared (this was done in R2, so not an automatic accept by Con) and Con did not challenge this, so both sides handicapped themselves (rest in comments)