The Instigator
JustinBieberFan123
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Tminusfour20
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

is it likely that a god created the universe or not

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
JustinBieberFan123
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 566 times Debate No: 69782
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

JustinBieberFan123

Pro

i think that god is likely to have creeated the universe. Me and my friend were discussing this at school today. i am here to tell you what my view on it is.

for someone to accept this debate, in round one they have to say 'i accept' (nothing else at all. really, nothing.) and nothing else, otherwise it will be an automatic loss on their side.

round two, three and four are rounds for arguing. the last round is for a quick summary.

good luck to anyone who accepts this :)

i want a serious debate.
Tminusfour20

Con

I accept. Thanks for the debate opportunity.
Debate Round No. 1
JustinBieberFan123

Pro

The BoP is shared.

I thank my opponent for accepting. I will be affirming that God is likely to exist, and therefore, likely created the universe... This is my first debate on this site.


It would be reasonable to first define "God".

God - "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe" (1)


Universe - "All space-time, matter, and energy"(2)


The first argument I wish to commend is what is commonly know as the 'cosmological argument from contingency'

P = Premise

P1: All physical things have contingent existence

P2: The universe is contingent

P3: The universe depends on something that is non-contingent and external to the universe to exist

C: It is likely God exists, and created the universe


To elaborate on my first premise, every physical thing that exists, depends on something else for its existence. For example, human life is dependant on our sun etc. This premise is valid for it is induced as a posteriori. (4)

To elaborate on my second premise, it is logically reasonable to attribute the universe to having a contingent existence, for all of its' contents has contingent existence. Analogy: If a planet is blue, and exists completely composed from blue elements, compounds etc. It would be logical to induce that planet as a "blue planet".

To elaborate on my third premise, if everything that we have observed is contingent, it means that it depends on something else to exist. If the universe is contingent, it relies on something else to exist. Since every physical entity has contingent existence, a physical entity could not of initiated the existence of everything else, for that would have to be dependent on another thing to exist. Therefore, the entity to initiate the chain of contingent entities, would have to be non-physical, and external to the universe. This being would have to be God. By this definition, this deity would have to be transcendental.

Conclusion: Therefore, God is likely to exist, because from our current observations of the universe, everything has contingent existence - the entity that has to initiate it would have to be God, for the being would have to be outside space, therefore, transcendental.

(1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
(2) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
(3) base knowledge for this argument - http://en.wikipedia.org...
(4) http://www.merriam-webster.com...


I have another argument or two, but I will refrain, for I don't know whether my opponent will respond or not.

Nonetheless, over to you, Con.
Tminusfour20

Con

This becomes Harder now because I dont agree with our premise that by definition God is the ruler and creater of the universe. That would defeat my argument before it starts.

"P1: All physical things have contingent existence"

I agree.

"P2: The universe is contingent"

The universe is contingent on the big bang or the rapid-energy inflation that created the universe and still persists today. It is ignorant to lump everything that is contingent on the universe and lump it into the same type of contingency of the Universe which is contingent on a cause completely outside our current scope of knowledge.

"P3: The universe depends on something that is non-contingent and external to the universe to exist"

I think the universe "depended" on something that is non-contingent and external to "come" to existence.

"C: It is likely God exists, and created the universe"

Disagree. This is an assumption based on closely held viewpoint. We have no right to assert specifc dieties as causation. You can literally plug in any mythical diety you like (one that is described as all powerful and all knowing and created the universe) and read "It is likely Zeus exist, and created the universe"

According to scientific articles and peer reviewed journals the laws of physics, the material world, and everything we know as reality, were created at the start of the big bang. It is theorized that this was the result of a battle between matter and anti matter which was obviously won by matter( Anti-matter also exists http://www.nasa.gov...)

The implication of God as the creator of the universe is an assumption that holds basis in religion and the cosmological argument can be fulfilled by any outside deity that has existed over thousands of years and fits the major descriptions of God. There is no solid concrete evidence to further research this argument. Once you have accepted that God created the universe you must then immediately agree to certain terms of the religion afterwards such as: Not questioning the motives of God, not knowing how God created the universe, How the elements came into to play, Denying the possibility of extraterrestrial life regardless of how massive the universe actually is. With science everyday working harder and harder to explain the very hard to explain, they don't stop at what brought the universe into existence but venture of into how it was done. A question that will never be logically answered by the assumption that God created it.

Your premise is ultimately unverifiable and hold's no physical or logical evidence to support it as claiming something doesn't necessarily make it true. If you are not religious and aren't afraid to question the motives of God please present research on how scientists theorize God created the earth and present evidence outside of the creation myth.

Below are theories and evidence on how the earth came to be by credentialed scientists.

I would have actually accepted your argument If you claimed that God created the big bang which in turn caused the universe to create itself.

http://www.hawking.org.uk...

http://www.quora.com...
Debate Round No. 2
JustinBieberFan123

Pro

I thank you for responding.

Counter-refutation

My opponent claims that my second premise is invalid, for the universe is created because of The Big Bang, or because of a rapid-energy inflation. My opponent confirms that the universe was actually created because of one of the two unproven theories. Con tries to deductively prove the universe's birth, from two theories, not facts. Another problem with my opponents rebuttal, is that Con claims that the universe can be created from something that has contingent existence... The Big Bang has contingent existence which is dependent on all of space to be contained at a single point (1). However, Con claims that the universe could be created because of "rapid-energy inflation", which is weird, because for the rapid-energy inflation to occur, it would require a universe. Nonetheless, that would also have contingent existence... (2) A contingent entity cannot cause the initial chain, for their would be a reason for that existing. Therefore, a non-contingent being would have to initiate the chain, for that would not depend on something to exist.

Now I will quote my opponents arguments and rebut accordingly...


"The universe is contingent on the big bang or the rapid-energy inflation"

It is impossible for the creator of the universe to exist contingently, for that would have a preceding reason to exist...


"It is ignorant to lump everything that is contingent on the universe and lump it into the same type of contingency of the Universe"
"Ignorant" - ad hominem. And I can't understand what Con's intentions are with this statement... I ask that Con rephrases for next round.

"This is an assumption based on closely held viewpoint."
Likewise; I disagree... The cosmological argument from contingency inductively proves the likeliness of God, and how God created the universe...

"We have no right to assert specific dieties as causation."
Which is why I did not assign a specific deity to the role of creating the universe. The only entity which can create the universe, has to be:
omnipotent, omniscient, and transcendent which I affirmed earlier...

"You can literally plug in any mythical diety you like (one that is described as all powerful and all knowing and created the universe) and read "It is likely Zeus exist, and created the universe"
On the contrary... Only a deity which has the attributes listed above.

"According to scientific articles and peer reviewed journals the laws of physics, the material world, and everything we know as reality, were created at the start of the big bang."
As I affirmed earlier, it is not factual, it is theory. Even if the Big Bang did occur, it has contingent existence... The only point this proves, is that it gives God another possible way of creating the universe - through the Big Bang. But, I suppose that is deviating away from the resolution... For you to win the argument, you would have to prove why God probably does not exist, and how God probably did not create the universe.

" It is theorized that this was the result of a battle between matter and anti matter which was obviously won by matter"
"Theorised"... not deductive evidence. Even so, this does not disprove the likelihood of God existing, or creating the universe.

"The implication of God as the creator of the universe is an assumption that holds basis in religion and the cosmological argument can be fulfilled by any outside deity that has existed over thousands of years and fits the major descriptions of God."
I disagree; the cosmological argument inductively proves God's existence. It can only be fulfilled by a deity that is: omnipotent, omniscient, and transcendent.

"There is no solid concrete evidence to further research this argument."
I commend to my opponent that I only need to prove the 'likelihood' of God existing and creating the universe, rather than God 'definitely' existing and creating the universe... That's why I do not need to deductively prove God's existence, and to rather inductively prove God's existence.

"Once you have accepted that God created the universe you must then immediately agree to certain terms of the religion afterwards such as: Not questioning the motives of God"
I didn't specify any religion. There was no religion mentioned. As far as this debate is concerned, there is no need for a religion to be mentioned, or discussed at all - it does not disprove the likelihood of God existing, or creating the universe.

"not knowing how God created the universe, How the elements came into to play, Denying the possibility of extraterrestrial life regardless of how massive the universe actually is."
I didn't know that just because one believes in a God, they automatically disprove science or the possibility of aliens. My opponent implys that just because one believes in a God, science is not needed, which is sophistry.

"With science everyday working harder and harder to explain the very hard to explain, they don't stop at what brought the universe into existence but venture of into how it was done. A question that will never be logically answered by the assumption that God created it."
That is not necessarily true... People could want to know how God created the universe. One possibility (as you mentioned) is through the Big Bang.

"Your premise is ultimately unverifiable and hold's no physical or logical evidence to support it as claiming something doesn't necessarily make it true."
As said previously, I do not need to deductively prove that God exists... "no... logical evidence to support it". How is there no logical evidence? The whole argument is based on logic - if 'a' exists, because 'b' exists, because 'c' exists (this could go on forever, which is not possible). There has to be something to start the chain, which does not have a meaning to exist, which would have to be God.

"If you are not religious and aren't afraid to question the motives of God please present research on how scientists theorize God created the earth and present evidence outside of the creation myth."
My opponent committed what is known as a, "moving the goalposts" fallacy (3). My opponent claims that I need to post evidence that is produced by Atheists to fulfill my BoP. Why should I? I have already produced a logical argument that inductively verifies the likelihood of God existing and creating the universe. I refer Con to the resolution "is it likely that a God created the universe or not?"

"Below are theories and evidence on how the earth came to be by credentialed scientists."

I do not see how this disproves the likelihood of God existing, or creating the universe.

I would have actually accepted your argument If you claimed that God created the big bang which in turn caused the universe to create itself.
You did accept. The Big Bang is only theorised - still does not disprove the likelihood of God existing - grants God a way of creating the universe - through The Big Bang.


Summary:
-Con tries to invalidate my premise, by claiming that I need to provide deductive evidence.
-Con still has to fulfill his BoP.
-The foundations of Con's argument is stating that there is a chance that The Big Bang occurred, therefore, God cannot exist, and couldn't have created the universe. Whereas, my inductive evidence proves that God would have to create the universe, because God is the only entity that can be omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent and and non-contingent.
-Con commits the 'ad hominem' and 'moving the goalposts' logical fallacy.

To you, Con . :)









(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2)http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3)http://en.wikipedia.org...
Tminusfour20

Con

What I"m trying to say I guess is the universe may have had a beginning but it"s creation does not follow the same laws of creation as everything that we know in the physical world. As you have also stated, these laws do not apply to God as well.

If God created the universe is it reasonable to believe he created the laws by which the universe were governed by at that time as well? If so the laws we comprehend now, no longer apply. What we know of cause and effect and creation and destruction should not apply to God or the universe as these things did not exist prior to one or the other or both.

What may have created the universe may very well be outside outside of our scope of knowledge and we may be wasting our time applying physical laws and methodology to things that operate under completely different laws or no laws at all.

The BoP is to pinpoint the creator of the universe and explain why. Your explanation is that by definition God has no creator and is the most likely candidate create the universe. By definition God has the power to do so but the universe but this can be an argument for anything you attribute these characteristics to.

The argument is self confirming as you would have to accept the definition of God as the creator of the universe. Prior to your conclusion your premises have nothing to do with God and do not necessarily have to imply God as the only non-contingent thing able to create universes. Things outside the universe by definition have the ability to create the universe since they are not contingent but why settle the argument at God? It is impossible to know what entities or beings exist outside of the universe so I don't find it fair to call God the only candidate.

I acknowledge your point that you aren't required to prove the existence of God but the likeliness of him creating the universe. If we are on those terms than I should be able to define any entity I wish with the characteristics of being outside the universe. I shouldn't need to prove the existence of this entity but his characteristics would be in line with anything capable of creating the universe which is something outside of the universe.

"As I affirmed earlier, it is not factual, it is theory. Even if the Big Bang did occur, it has contingent existence... The only point this proves is that it gives God another possible way of creating the universe"

The issue I have with this is that the existence of God by your definition is a theory there's no solid evidence to prove the existence of God by your definition nor that he is the the only entity outside of our knowledge and understanding that is capable of being outside of the universe and creating it. It's skips any other alternative and goes straight for God as the only result and I feel that is a flawed method of reasoning. I don't see how you can call it the most likely possibility without considering other possible "first causes" that may exist.

"There has to be something to start the chain, which does not have a meaning to exist, which would have to be God."

What is the meaning for anything outside of the universe to exist? This follows the assumption that God is the only thing outside of the universe. By definition to start a chain is still a start is still a beginning and doesnt a start or beginning warrant a cause?What was the meaning of the big bang to exist or any other theorized possiblities for the creation of the universe.

The basis of my argument is that your argument can support a wide vareity of theorized beings that have the potential to fit nicely into your definition. Because these things can't ultimately be proven and don't require to be proven for this argument, It is safe to say the cosmological argument can support anything else you can think of as well as God. To say God is likely to exist is to say the other possibilites that anyone can conceive under similar definitions cannot exist. I would need some evidence to support that something outside of our knowledge does not exist and that God is the only things outside of our scope of knowledge that exist and is capable of creating universes.
Debate Round No. 3
JustinBieberFan123

Pro

I thank my opponent for appearing for round three! I would like to clarify what this debate should entail... My opponent, for many of his rebuttals, continues to refer to science. I commend that science is close to irrelevant for this debate, because no scientific research can affirm whether God is likely or not likely to exist and create the universe.

Re-rebuttal

"What I"m trying to say I guess is the universe may have had a beginning but it"s creation does not follow the same laws of creation as everything that we know in the physical world."
I am not familiar with this "law of creation" that you are referring to. The cosmological argument affirms that God most likely created the universe.

"As you have also stated, these laws do not apply to God as well."
I do not believe that whether something has contingent existence or not is a "law". It is simple: since God is non-contingent, God would not depend on something to exist. Think of it like this:
3x + 5 = 20, what is x? "x" would have to be 5, for 5 is the only applicable value for the equation. The same applies to our universe:
The universe was caused by x. "x" would have to be God, for God can only possess omnipotence, transcendence and omniscience, therefore is the only applicable slot for "x".

"If God created the universe is it reasonable to believe he created the laws by which the universe were governed by at that time as well?"
Yes, for God created the universe. However, it is not reasonable to say that we comprehend all of the rules - science has barely scratched the surface of explaining everything, and we have no idea whether our laws are correct or not.

"If so the laws we comprehend now, no longer apply."
I never once mentioned science, or the laws of physics. It is irrelevant to this discussion - it helps neither of us fulfill our burden of proofs. The cosmological argument of contingency does not scientifically induce God's existence, it logically does. You cannot scientifically induce that God does not exist either, so science is moot in this debate.


"What we know of cause and effect and creation and destruction should not apply to God or the universe as these things did not exist prior to one or the other or both."
Again, science should not be involved. I don't know why Con is under the pretense that science is a relevant factor in this debate.

"What may have created the universe may very well be outside outside of our scope of knowledge and we may be wasting our time applying physical laws and methodology to things that operate under completely different laws or no laws at all."
This is why the argument is positioned on the knowledge we currently operate under today. Con expresses that I need to deductively prove God's existence; I do not - the resolution reads "is it likely that a God created the universe or not?" Even if Con's contention was relevant, it would imply that we would have a definitive answer for whether our current interpretations of physics is correct or not; which we don't. Therefore, it still renders the science aspect of Con's contention moot.

"The BoP is to pinpoint the creator of the universe and explain why"
I disagree. Considering what the resolution is, it is logical to assume that Pro's burden of proof would be to prove that God is likely to exist and is likely to be the creator of the universe. Con's burden of proof is to prove that God likely does not exist, and likely did not create the universe.

" Your explanation is that by definition God has no creator and is the most likely candidate create the universe."
Indeed.

"By definition God has the power to do so but the universe but this can be an argument for anything you attribute these characteristics to."
Hmmm. It is hard to fully understand what Con's intentions are with this statement. I assume that Con meant to say that it wouldn't have to be God to create the universe; it could be created by any entity that has omnipotence, transcendence, and omniscience. However, I argue that God can be the only entity that can have the properties listed above. For, as I defined God earlier, God is "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe". Therefore, God is the only being to possess those properties.

"The argument is self confirming as you would have to accept the definition of God as the creator of the universe."
Wait? Con concedes that God created the universe? Or if Con is referring to the definition of "God" that I posted earlier, it does not make Con automatically lose the debate, for it reads "a being conceived", therefore, does not make it definitively true. The definition would be nullified if Con can induce that God does not exist.

"Prior to your conclusion your premises have nothing to do with God and do not necessarily have to imply God as the only non-contingent thing able to create universes."
I think what Con means to say, is that I need to further justify that if the universe is contingent, God would have to be the one to create it. Also, I fear that Con might have forgotten the definition that I provided earlier for "universe","All space-time, matter, and energy". Therefore, I am affirming that God created space-time, all matter and energy. I am under the pretense that Con may have been referring to the universe, as the observable universe, instead of the provided definition. Nonetheless, I will thoroughly elaborate on why God is the only applicable entity to have created the universe:
God is omnipotent, transcendental, and omniscient. Why could only God be able to create the universe? Because only a being that is omnipotent could do such a thing. Why would God have to be omniscient? Because God would have to know how to create the universe, what to create, what creation causes another to exist etc. How would God have to be transcendental? Because, God would have to be non-physical, and non-contingent to create the universe. God is the only entity that can possess those attributes. Therefore, God could have created the universe, and nothing else could. Since I have affirmed that God inductively exists, and that God is the only being that could create the universe, with our current understanding, we can induce that God would have to create the universe.

"As I affirmed earlier, it is not factual, it is theory. Even if the Big Bang did occur, it has contingent existence... The only point this proves is that it gives God another possible way of creating the universe" (Me)

"The issue I have with this is that the existence of God by your definition is a theory there's no solid evidence to prove the existence of God by your definition nor that he is the the only entity outside of our knowledge and understanding that is capable of being outside of the universe and creating it."
(Con)
Con was attempting to invalidate my inductive argument, produced from logic, on the basis that the Big Bang theory 'could' have happened. Con is trying to nullify my argument, by saying that I invalidated his argument on the basis that it was theory. Whereas, my argument is dependent on logic, which Con has not successfully refuted yet. Again, Con commits the 'moving the goalposts' fallacy, by claiming that I need to deductively prove God's existence.

"It's skips any other alternative and goes straight for God as the only result and I feel that is a flawed method of reasoning."
It does not skip "any other alternative and goes straight for God" because God is the only possible being to create the universe. Aforementioned, "the universe was caused by x. "x" would have to be God, for God can only possess omnipotence, transcendence and omniscience, therefore is the only applicable slot for "x"."

"I don't see how you can call it the most likely possibility without considering other possible "first causes" that may exist."
What are the intentions of "first causes". Causes of what? Causes of God? That is impossible, God is non-contingent - not dependent on anything to exist.

"There has to be something to start the chain, which does not have a meaning to exist, which would have to be God." (Me)

"What is the meaning for anything outside of the universe to exist?
What is the meaning for anything outside of the universe to exist?" (Con)
Con implys that God has contingent existence; aforementioned, God is non-contingent.

"This follows the assumption that God is the only thing outside of the universe."
Indeed.

"By definition to start a chain is still a start is still a beginning and doesnt a start or beginning warrant a cause?"
Indeed. Hence why the cosmological argument was created...

"What was the meaning of the big bang to exist or any other theorized possiblities for the creation of the universe."
This contention implies that the Big Bang definitely existed. Therefore, the argument is invalid. However, if the Big Bang did occur, it would have contingent existence, and would remain invalid as the creator of "all space-time, matter and energy."

"The basis of my argument is that your argument can support a wide vareity of theorized beings that have the potential to fit nicely into your definition. Because these things can't ultimately be proven and don't require to be proven for this argument, It is safe to say the cosmological argument can support anything else you can think of as well as God. To say God is likely to exist is to say the other possibilites that anyone can conceive under similar definitions cannot exist. I would need some evidence to support that something outside of our knowledge does not exist and that God is the only things outside of our scope of knowledge that exist and is capable of creating universes."
I have proven that God can only be the possible candidate.

I don't have enough character space to provide a summary. However, my argument still awaits to be refuted. I commend to Con that science is pretty much an irrelevant factor.

To you, Con. :)
















Tminusfour20

Con

Tminusfour20 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
JustinBieberFan123

Pro

Oh well. Unfortunately Con forfeited. Nonetheless, this was still a fun debate.

Closing statements:
My argument still stands
Con spent all of his time trying to negate my argument, that he did not provide one of his own (BoP was shared...)
Con committed a couple of logical fallacies

Anyway, hopefully Con can appear for his closing statements. To you, Con :)
Tminusfour20

Con

Tminusfour20 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
JustinBieberFan123Tminusfour20Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture