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

The Supreme Being Exists

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 2/20/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 710 times Debate No: 70399
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




Structure of the Debate

Round 1 is for acceptance only. Rounds 2, 3 and 4 are for presentation arguments, rebuttals and conclusion arguments with no definite structure. Therefore, arguments may be presented in any format.

Definitions of the Described Terms

In the used context: (a) "Supreme Being" (noun) is defined as "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority."; (b) "exists" is the third-person present form of "exist", that is defined as, "to have objective reality or being," and is a verb. To further expand on this debate's context of the Supreme Being:
The aforementioned must have sentience and must have a psychological ability to process information in a way that is similar to the human mind. The Supreme Being described above must also have the three primary defining aspects of (a) omnipotence (defined as an abstract noun that means "the state of having the ability to perform any action, natural or supernatural,") and (b) omniscience (defined as an abstract noun meaning, "the state of having absolute, limitless and completely accurate knowledge of everything,"). For further sharp accuracy, "everything" is defined as, "all things", or, in other words, "all forms of scientifically existent or nonexistent matter, antimatter, energy, force or anything existent in the spacetime continuum, and beyond (in a spiritual sense,") but the simpler first definition of "all things" is used in this debate.

The Positions

The position of "Con" is to be AGAINST the assumption that one Supreme Being (as defined above) exists. The position of "Pro" is to argue FOR the position that a Supreme Being exists. All arguments must strictly be based only on verifiable proof. External sources can be used to strengthen the arguments. Arguments of the Supreme Being as defined above being a force, or any similar positions, are not valid to this debate which is strictly in accordance with the above definitions.


Decent and acceptable conduct must be maintained. Profanity and/or vulgar language of any form is strictly prohibited. Inappropriate, abusive or insulting phrases are unacceptable. Polite etiquette and civil behavior must be maintained. Trolling is strictly forbidden. Any arguments that violate the code of conduct as mentioned here will be reported to DDO and will be removed from the debate.


Thus, any violation of the rules and regulations will result in my immediate 7-point victory.


1. The Oxford Dictionary of English; 2015 Edition (American English)



Mike, I will gladly take this. Maybe we can all learn something today.
Debate Round No. 1


My position is that the concept of a Supreme Being existing is irrational. For this, here are the proof and the arguments that I present:

1. The Omnipotence Paradox

If a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do. [1] By this debate's definition of "omnipotence", the omnipotence referenced here is absolute omnipotence, meaning that there are no limits to the Supreme Being's omnipotence by the terms of this debate. Thus, omnipotence cannot exist.

2. The Omniscience Paradox

(1) If the Supreme Being foreknows of some event E, does E happen necessarily, and (2) if some event E is contingent, how can the Supreme Being foreknow E's occurrence? [2] [3] Thus, omniscience implies the lack of contingency, and thus, by the definition of the existence of a Supreme Being, means everything is definite. This definitiveness is proof of the universe being completely entwined by order. But according to the thermodynamic measure of entropy, there is more than one way in which a thermodynamic system (eg: a region of the universe) may be arranged. [4] [5] This arrangement is variable, yet constant in the fact that the varied arrangements may coexist. Thus, there is, by definition, disorder in the universe. [4] If there is disorder, then only one hypothesis of the possibilities of entropy may be predestined, and not more. Thus, foreknowing all the possibilities is impossible. Therefore, omniscience does not exist.

3. Miracles

"Miracle" is defined as "an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency." [6] Miracles are (a) deemed possible and necessary by the laws of omnipotence, and (b) essential attributes of the Supreme Being. But, they are inexplicable by the laws of physics and have no proof to them. Therefore, if the Supreme Being is unable to perform any supernatural action, then he/she may not be considered as the Supreme Being.

4. Russell's Teapot

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. [7] This analogy also now allows me, having presented the logical rationales for the nonexistence of a Supreme Being, to shift the burden of proof to Pro and theism.

[1] Savage, C. Wade. "The Paradox of the Stone" Philosophical Review, Vol. 76, No. 1 (Jan., 1967), pp. 74–79
[2] "Purtill on Fatalism and Truth". Faith and Philosophy: 229–234. 1990.
[3] Viney, Donald Wayne (Spring 1989). "Does Omniscience Imply Foreknowledge? Craig on Hartshorneby". Process Studies (Center for Process Studies) 18 (1): 30–37.
[4]"Carnot, Sadi (1796–1832)". Wolfram Research. 2007. Retrieved 2010-02-24.
[6] Oxford Dictionary of English, American Edition (



Mike, I won't rebut anything in this round. I will do that next round. First I want to get my thoughts out there. A supreme being obviously exists because where does everything come from? If there is such thing as the "Big Bang" how did that happen, and how did we get all the matter that is in the universe? This supreme being could be God, that is the Christian one, or it could be something else, like who knows, maybe we're all in a virtual reality designed by the supreme being who put us here. However, I think that the supreme being is the Christian God because of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was the greatest person who ever lived because he was incredibly unselfish and put others' needs in front of his own. Jesus never committed a sin in his life. Now Jesus preached of God. Jesus couldn't be lying because he never committed a sin, and lying is a sin. Thank You.
Debate Round No. 2


The Singularity

In particle physics, a gravitational singularity is a point in spacetime with infinite energy density and zero volume, making it extremely condensed with energy. [1][2] During the Big Bang, there was a singularity that contained photonic energy (i.e. light energy). The extremely concentrated singularity expanded slightly, releasing heat energy from the friction of the gradually contracting photons. The photons suddenly contracted immediately, producing particles and antiparticles.[1][3] These gradually became what is known as the universe today.

The Grand Design Question

The question "who/what created the universe?" is often the question posed by theists to cite the existence of a Supreme Being. But, if the answer is the Supreme Being, then the question can merely be deflected to "what created the Supreme Being?" [4] According to recent research, there CAN be something that created the universe initially. And, according to most physicists, it is the singularity, the initial focus of the Big Bang.

Ancient Intelligence

"Intelligence" is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. [5] Intelligence has displayed itself in the evolution of various species, but the most complex form of intelligence is found in hominids. Hominids evolved from apes and emerged around 7.5 to 5.5 million years ago. [6] Biologically, such complex intelligence cannot have emerged prior to 7.5 million years ago, but, since the universe was created 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago, [7] an intelligent Supreme Being would have had to have existed before that time, which is biologically impossible.


Scientifically and theologically, the existence of a Supreme Being with the qualities of omniscience and omnipotence is impossible.


A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking
[2] Moulay, Emmanuel. "The universe and photons". FQXi Foundational Questions Institute. (
[3] Aguilar, M.; Alberti, G.; Alpat, B.; Alvino, A.; Ambrosi, G.; Andeen, K.; Anderhub, H.; Arruda, L.; Azzarello, P.; Bachlechner, A.; Barao, F.; Baret, B.; Barrau, A.; Barrin, L.; Bartoloni, A.; Basara, L.; Basili, A.; Batalha, L.; Bates, J.; Battiston, R.; Bazo, J.; Becker, R.; Becker, U.; Behlmann, M.; Beischer, B.; Berdugo, J.; Berges, P.; Bertucci, B.; Bigongiari, G. et al. (2013). "First Result from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on the International Space Station: Precision Measurement of the Positron Fraction in Primary Cosmic Rays of 0.5–350 GeV". Physical Review Letters 110 (14): 141102.
[4] The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking, Leonard Mlodinow
[5] Oxford Dictionary of English, American Edition, 2015
[6] Begun, David R. 2010. Miocene Hominids and the Origins of the African Apes and Humans. Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 39: 67 -84
[7] "Planck reveals an almost perfect universe". Planck.ESA. 2013-03-21. (


First off you state that the supreme being is a human, and since intelligent creatures only started forming after the universe came to be, the supreme being doesn't exist. The supreme being isn't a human, but a divine creature that doesn't exist on earth, but can take human form. Also it doesn't follow the laws of science since it created science and science could not have existed before it. Also, you never stated how the particles in the "big bang" came to be, so the thought that the supreme being is still valid. You also ask who created the supreme being. The supreme being was never created, it just is. The supreme being has no particles within itself, but can create a form to take.
Debate Round No. 3


1. I did not state that the Supreme Being was human; I said that the Supreme Being was an intelligent being, that could not have existed before a certain period.
2. IF the Supreme Being exists, then what created this being? If the Supreme Being can self-create, then why can a particle not self-create? [1] According to physics, a singularity can be created by warped gravitational force that then releases photons; hence, "creating the universe".
3. My proof is by the laws of science. You must PROVE that a Supreme Being can violate the laws of science, or even exists. My proof lies in physics. Pro has not proven anything, and yet, by the Russel's teapot analogy, the burden of proof lies with Pro. Pro has not proven anything, and hence their arguments are void. I have thus PROVEN my arguments with the laws of physics. The existence of a Supreme Being DOES violate these laws of existence. Thus, Pro has not fulfilled the necessary objectives of this debate.

I have no direct arguments for this round, and I extend all my previous arguments since Pro's previous argument is void.

[1] The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow


Well if it's human or not, you assumed that the supreme being couldn't be intelligent. However, the supreme being created science, and the evolution that created humans. Also, it does not take any human form. You also haven't told me where all the substance that came from the big bang appeared. And the supreme being wasn't "created" since it doesn't have any matter, but can create matter to take a form. And this does not violate the laws of science since the supreme being created science.
Debate Round No. 4


1. Pro has still not provided PROOF that the Supreme Being transcends science. Pro just accepted the notion that the Supreme Being exists while rebutting perfectly valid, scientific arguments. What PROOF does Pro have? The laws of physics are laws that apply to everything in existence. [1] A Supreme Being did NOT create science, as to do that, he would have to be omniscient, which is inexplicable and impossible by the Omniscience Paradox [2]. By the rules of this debate, "All arguments must strictly be based only on verifiable proof." [3] Pro has seemingly ignored this rule and has not provided ANY verifiable proof.

2. Jesus may not have been lying; he may have spoken in metaphors talking of particle physics' laws [4][5][6].

Since Pro's previous argument was equally void, I extend all my arguments from previous rounds.

Reasons for Victory:
1. Pro DID NOT provide ANY valid proof, and by the rules of Round 1, "any violation of the rules and regulations will result in my immediate 7-point victory." Thus, since Pro has violated the rule "All arguments must strictly be based only on verifiable proof", I am guaranteed my immediate 7-point victory. Even if Pro produces proof in the next round, ALL arguments MUST be BASED ON verifiable proof; the proof will have been provided late, and the arguments will not have been BASED ON them, thus guaranteeing my victory.
2. I had better conduct because of Pro not following the rule mentioned above, and my arguments were more precise. Pro did not use any sources whatsoever. My sources were works by major physicists and dictionaries. Please vote for me. Thanks to @JimmyBoJangles for accepting this debate and for their active participation.

[1] "Laws of Nature" - Oxford Dictionary of English
[2] Round 2: The Omniscience Paradox (
[3] Round 1: The Positions (
[4] The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra
[5] - E Pluribus Unum, What Is Nothing?, and God Does Not Play Dice With The Universe
[6] God & The New Physics by Paul Davis


For the last time, I will say this. The supreme being has no body, but is a soul that is made up of matter and created science. When will you listen Mike. Also God has made his presence known and if you deny that, then you are simply ignorant.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
KonstanBen. Voted for Pro (choose winner). Removed because: it is not a sufficient explanation to say that one sentence that Pro wrote "spoke to you." The resolution was whether a Supreme Being exists. I don't see any explanation in this RFD as to why KonstanBen was convinced by Pro that a Supreme Being exists. This is also the fourth or fifth time that KostanBen has had a questionable vote cast in support of JimmyBojangles. Given that JimmyBojangles failed to address numerous arguments from Con (like the omnipotence paradox), that KonstanBen refused to consider these and merely picked out one sentence uttered by Pro, and the repeated and questionable votes consistently cast for JimmyBoJangles, this particular vote appears to be clearly "strategic."

Reasons for voting decision: What spoke to me in this debate was the way that the Aff was able to show that the laws of science do not apply to a supreme being.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
jimmy you are pretty good at grammar, but do you know what an argument to ignorance is, it is your argument.
The fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is not designed by an intelligent creator does not prove that it is. Nor does the fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is designed by an intelligent creator prove that it isn't.
The argument to ignorance seems to be more seductive when it can prey on wishful thinking. People may be more prone to think that the lack of proof to the contrary of their desired belief is somehow relevant to supporting it. Using this fallacy is a tactic sometimes used to discredit people who can't disprove your claim.
Posted by KonstanBen 2 years ago
My apologies, Tejas.
Posted by KonstanBen 2 years ago
My apologies, Tejas.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
Actually, my first name is there in my profile.
Posted by KonstanBen 2 years ago
If Jim doesn't know your real name, it is polite to call you by his/her best guess.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
My name isn't Mike.
Posted by JimmyBoJangles 2 years ago
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
To Pro, who is Mike?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TBR 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made no attempt to address or rebut cons arguments, even when Pro said he would "in the next round". Pro made no attempt to resolve the question other than state personal belief.