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

Does the Universe Require a Creator?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/14/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,165 times Debate No: 23609
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




Mrparkers, Here you go!
Round 1 for my acceptance


I accept.

I define creator as: A person or being that brings something into existence.

I look forward to this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you "Mcparkers" for accepting my request of debate:

For this moment I shall argue with simplicity and brevity with that I shall focus my any of my responses to my rebuttals. I would not be in citation and in clinging to that of the term god and all its man-made attributions, which are religions. I shall not argue in a deistic fashion but in manner that would imply only a being of greatness away, for this moment, to religious implications.
Here I shall give an argument all knows about:

I - The universe is physical, thus is a product of something before it.
II - An infinite set of preceding causes is improbable and unthinkable.
III - Therefore there should be a cause which is the first, this is the greatest being.

The first part implies that the universe is physical, which is only acceptable, as materialists always assert, therefore if it so and motion as to make change is its requirement, it requires not to be eternal, for if every thing is caused by something else then what would have started this, if a Great being does not exist and eternality is to be given to matter then this violates one of the pinnacles of science, the law of causality, that every thing should be caused with regards to entities concluded to be tangible and is observable, if so it requires a cause not to be Physical since if so then the contention has not change at all. Eternality is impossible to physical entities, which is described in the second line, if matter has been continuously moving and changing then where did it get such energy to do so and if matter is not and has only began moving at some point in time, thereby creating something out of its first movement then what inspired it to move? I do agree that existence requires observation which can be done in two manners direct and indirect, and it is true that the proofs for that being is indirect, but does not imply is immediate dismissal for its possibility for realness for a number of impossibilities one could not explain if it is to removed. The other one being direct, in this case every thing is tangible, however if every thing is tangible and is of course equal there should be an ultimate being of such greatness. For if the mind, as I would accept to be an influence of St. Anselm to me, can conceptualize a being of such greatness it can only satisfy such mind conceptualization if it exists in both the mind and to reality, Therefore it is the greatest for if it only in the mind then how come it is ? I do agree with the points held by different irreligious schools, to which I may be classified as well, however if all schools of thought have reasonable arguments for their claims is it still better to consider only one? it is then much acceptable to create commonality to these two ideas otherwise contradictory.
One cannot argue about existence, none can prove it, The way Jose Rizal (Philippine National Hero) cannot be defend to have existed at some point in time by merely depending to this being alone but there are his deeds, to whom should they be credited? the same way as there is the universe, how did it come about? My question would be simple; How can something come from nothing? explain how it may be possible before creating a criticism that may be irrelevant to my points by giving his own statement/s, for if this is unanswered then how can one assert that a Great being have never existed? Just by giving his points and leaving these unanswered, can that prove that God has never come to reality?


"If the general picture, however, of a Big Bang followed by an expanding Universe is correct, what happened before that? Was the Universe devoid of all matter and then the matter suddenly somehow created, how did that happen? In many cultures, the customary answer is that a God or Gods created the Universe out of nothing. But if we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must of course ask the next question, where did God come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the Universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God always existed, why not save a step, and conclude that the Universe always existed? There is no need for a creation, it was always here. These are not easy questions. Cosmology brings us face to face with the deepest mysteries, questions that were once treated only in religion and myth." - Carl Sagan

I will negate the resolution and debate that the universe does not require a creator.


Let's first look at the resolution of the debate. Does the universe require a creator? The first thing worth mentioning is that in this debate, neither of us are trying to affirm or negate the existence of a higher power. As Con, I am not attempting to argue that it is impossible for the universe to have been created by a higher power, I am only trying to argue that it is possible for the universe to have not been created by a person or being that brings something into existence.

By stating that "The Universe requires a creator", my opponent is claiming that it is impossible for the universe to have come into existence by any other means except from creation by a higher power.

If I can successfully prove that there is a single possible scenario of the creation of the universe that does not require some sort of creator (by the definition I have offered in round 1), regardless of the probability, then I will have won the debate.

It is scientifically possible for the universe to have come from nothing

It is often best to start with what we already know about the universe. The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe did an amazing job answering the many questions that cosmologists had about the universe. Among many others, one of the most important questions that were answered was: What is the universe's geometry? With only a 0.5% margin of error, WMAP confirmed that the universe follows a flat geometry [1]. The data recorded from the WMAP fits extremely well with the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker model, which is another very convincing indication that the universe is indeed flat [2].

You may be wondering, "What's the significance of a flat universe?". A flat modeled universe is extremely significant to the questions being asked here because it provides a reasonable and natural explanation about how the universe could have come from nothing. This is because a flat model universe has zero total energy[3]. All of the positive energy that exists in the universe is balanced out by the negative energy we refer to as gravity. This results in a cumulative total of zero energy[4].

The next question one might ask is "What's the significance of zero total energy?". A publication done by Filippenko and Pasachoff, whom are both professors of astronomy, do a better job of explaining this than I could by saying: "The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy."[5]

Quantum theory provides an easy explanation of how the "tiny bit of energy" was able to form without the universe being present. Quantum fluctuations, or a temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space[6], can occur quite frequently without disrupting the law of conservation of energy due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle [7]. This provides one explanation of how a fluctuation of energy could have existed before the universe was created, and thus, could have easily been the "first cause" of the universe's existence as we know it.


What I have outlined thus far is a single possibility of the universe coming from nothing. I have cited evidence for each claim that I have made, most of which is coming from scientists, astrologists, and cosmologists who study these kinds of things every day. I am not trying to argue that this must have been the way the universe was formed, I am only trying to demonstrate that it is completely possible for the universe to not have a creator. Even if the probability of this occuring is next to zero, which I am sure my opponent will attempt to argue, it is still scientifically possible, meaning that there is at least one plausible scenario in which the universe does not require a creator.

The resolution has been negated.


4. The YouTube video above

Debate Round No. 2


The Fundamental Question:

From time immemorial men have turned their gaze toward the heavens and wondered. Both cosmology and philosophy trace their roots to the wonder felt by the ancient Greeks as they contemplated the cosmos. According to Aristotle,
it is owing to their wonder that men both now begin and at first began to philosophize; they wondered originally at the obvious difficulties, then advanced little by little and stated difficulties about the greater matters, e.g. about the phenomena of the moon and those of the sun and the stars, and about the origin of the universe.
The question of why the universe exists remains the ultimate mystery. Derek Parfit, a contemporary philosopher, declares that "No question is more sublime than why there is a Universe: why there is anything rather than nothing."
This question led the great German mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz to posit the existence of a metaphysically necessary being which carries within itself the sufficient reason for its own existence and which constitutes the sufficient reason for the existence of everything else in the world. Leibniz identified this being as God. Leibniz's critics, on the other hand, claimed that the space-time universe may itself be the necessary being demanded by Leibniz's argument. Thus, the Scottish sceptic David Hume queried, "Why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent Being . . . ?" Indeed, "How can anything, that exists from eternity, have a cause, since that relation implies a priority in time and a beginning of existence?" There is no warrant for going beyond the universe to posit a supernatural ground of its existence.

This stand-off persisted unaltered until 1917, the year in which Albert Einstein made a cosmological application of his newly discovered General Theory of Relativity. To his chagrin, he found that GTR would not permit a static model of the universe unless he introduced into his gravitational field equations a certain "fudge factor" L in order to counterbalance the gravitational effect of matter. Einstein's universe was balanced on a razor's edge, however, and the least perturbation would cause the universe either to implode or to expand. By taking this feature of Einstein's model seriously, Alexander Friedman and Georges Lemaitre were able to formulate independently in the 1920s solutions to the field equations which predicted an expanding universe.

The monumental significance of the Friedman-Lemaitre model lay in its historization of the universe. As one commentator has remarked, up to this time the idea of the expansion of the universe "was absolutely beyond comprehension. Throughout all of human history the universe was regarded as fixed and immutable and the idea that it might actually be changing was inconceivable." But if the Friedman-Lemaitre model were correct, the universe could no longer be adequately treated as a static entity existing, in effect, timelessly. Rather the universe has a history, and time will not be matter of indifference for our investigation of the cosmos. In 1929 Edwin Hubble's measurements of the red-shift in the optical spectra of light from distant galaxies, which was taken to indicate a universal recessional motion of the light sources in the line of sight, provided a dramatic verification of the Friedman-Lemaitre model. Incredibly, what Hubble had discovered was the isotropic expansion of the universe predicted by Friedman and Lemaitre. It marked a veritable turning point in the history of science. "Of all the great predictions that science has ever made over the centuries," exclaims John Wheeler, "was there ever one greater than this, to predict, and predict correctly, and predict against all expectation a phenomenon so fantastic as the expansion of the universe?"

Naturalistic Objections:

Many persons will, of course, be reluctant to take on board such metaphysical baggage. But what objection is there to the postulate of a personal, causal agency beyond the universe? Some critiques may be easily dismissed. For example, metaphysician John Post obviously begs the question when he claims that there cannot be a cause of the origin of the universe, since "by definition the universe contains everything there is or ever was or will be." Again it is an obvious non-sequitur when he infers that because "the singularity cannot be caused by some earlier natural event or process," therefore "contemporary physical cosmology cannot be cited in support of the idea of a divine cause or creator of the universe."

On the other hand, Smith realizes that the metaphysician must take seriously the "more difficult question" of "whether or not the singularity or the Big Bang probably is an effect of a supernatural cause." What problem, then, is there with a supernaturalist perspective? Adolf Gr�nbaum has argued vigorously against what he styles "the New Creation Argument" for a supernatural cause of the origin of the universe. His basic Ansatz is based on the assumption that causal priority implies temporal priority. Since there were no instants of time prior to the Big Bang, it follows that the Big Bang cannot have a cause.

It seems to me that there are a number of options for dealing with this objection, one of which is to hold that the Creator of the universe is causally, but not temporally, prior to the Big Bang singularity, such that His act of causing the universe to begin to exist is simultaneous, or co-incident, with its beginning to exist. Gr�nbaum provides no justification for his assumption that causal priority implies temporal priority. Discussions of causal directionality deal routinely with cases in which cause and effect are simultaneous. One could hold that the Creator sans the universe exists changelessly and, hence, timelessly and at the Big Bang singularity created the universe along with time and space. For the Creator sans the universe, there simply is no time because there are no events of any sort; time begins with the first event, at the moment of creation.
The time of the first event would be not only the first time at which the universe exists, but also, technically, the first time at which the Creator exists, since sans the universe the Creator is timeless. The act of creation is thus simultaneous with the origination of the universe.
The scenario I have sketched of the Creator's status sans the universe requires that the Creator be both a timeless and personal agent. But some philosophers have argued that such a notion is self-contradictory. For it is a necessary condition of personhood that an individual be capable of remembering, anticipating, reflecting, deliberating, deciding, and so forth. But these are inherently temporal activities. Therefore, there can be no atemporal persons.

We can summarize our argument as follows:

1. Whatever exists has a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external ground.
2. Whatever begins to exist is not necessary in its existence.
3. If the universe has an external ground of its existence, then there exists a Personal Creator of the universe, who, sans the universe, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and enormously powerful.
4. The universe began to exist.
From (2) and (4) it follows that

5. Therefore, the universe is not necessary in its existence.
From (1) and (5) it follows further that

6. Therefore, the universe has an external ground of its existence.
From (3) and (6) it we can conclude that

7. Therefore, there exists a Creator of the universe, who, sans the universe, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and enormously powerful.

If we go the route of postulating some causal agency beyond space and time as being responsible for the origin of the universe, then conceptual analysis enables us to recover a number of striking properties which must be possessed by such an ultra-mundane being.


It looks as if my opponent has already given up on this debate, because he has resorted to plagiarizing his arguments. His entire argument is copied, word-for-word, from an article by William Lane Craig on his website,

You can find the original article here:

There are a couple of things wrong with what he posted. First, and most obviously, he copied the entire thing, and didn't even try to hide the fact that he needed to resort to plagiarizing in order to have a successful debate. Secondly, the argument he posted did absolutely nothing to help the case that he's trying to make. Given the resolution (Does the universe require a creator?), Pro has failed to actually prove that the universe requires a creator. The arguments he has given may demonstrate that it is possible that the universe has a creator; they may even demonstrate that it is more probable that the universe has a creator, but they do not prove that the universe requires a creator.

In this round, I will attempt to address both the arguments that my opponent made, and the arguments that my opponent plagiarized. Note that for this debate, I am not required to address the latter, because they aren't his arguments, but I will anyways for the sake of this debate.

My opponent's opening argument

My opponent made two significant claims in his opening argument:

1) The universe has some sort of cause
2) This cause must be God (or a creator of some sort).

To back up his first claim, my opponent says that the universe is physical, and because it is illogical to assume that there are in infinite chain of events that could have resulted in the universe's existence, it must have a first cause. I don't necessarily agree, but there is no harm in me accepting my opponent's first claim.

However, my opponent's second claim has a lot of errors in it that must be addressed. My opponent starts his second claim by asking me "How can something come from nothing?". Given my opening argument, you can see how this is possible, but by saying this, my opponent is actually contradicting himself. My opponent is claiming that something cannot come from nothing, and then he goes on to tell you that it must have been God who created the universe from nothing.

Notice that in this particular argument, my opponent doesn't give a single reason as to why the cause of the universe must be a creator. He is, in fact, assuming that the universe was created by a creator because he doesn't have a better explanation of how the universe was created. This is an example of a logical fallacy called the Argument from Ignorance.

So the entirety of my opponent's opening argument must be rejected because:

1) I have already responded to it in my opening argument
2) My opponent contradicts himself.

My opponent's second argument

Not only did my opponent plagiarize his second argument, he also did a horrible job of it. He copied and pasted the worst possible sections of the article, and only one part of what he copied actually somewhat pertains to the resolution. In the first segment of the argument my opponent copied (The Fundamental Question), my opponent merely summarizes the debate between both sides of this resolution, which has apparently existed for a long time. No argument is made here. In the second segment (Naturalistic Objections), William Lane Craig responds to objections to his arguments in defense of the existence of God. None of this is relevant to this debate whatsoever because I didn't make a single one of these arguments. My opponent is attacking arguments that I never even made. The third segment of his argument is the only part of the argument that actually has anything to do with the resolution. Unfortunately, I don't accept the syllogism presented by Pro, because he doesn't give any evidence whatsoever to back up the claims he is making in each of his premises.

This argument must be rejected for the following reasons:

1) Plagiarism
2) Pro commits a Straw Man fallacy (attacking arguments that I did not make)
3) Lack of evidence for claims that were made.

My argument

My opponent failed to talk about anything that I said, so I extend this argument. I have successfully proven that it was possible for the universe to have formed without a creator, so I have already negated the resolution that the universe requires a creator.

Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3


philippines1946 forfeited this round.


It's a shame I can't get many debates without a forfeit.

Extend my arguments and vote Con please!
Debate Round No. 4


philippines1946 forfeited this round.


Extend my unrefuted arguments and vote Con please!
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by philippines1946 6 years ago
That is a very wonderful explanation indeed, but there is no need for it, you already won as you insist.
(Vote for Con, as you always say)
Posted by Mrparkers 6 years ago
In order to demonstrate that the universe was flat or that it contains zero total energy, I had no choice but to cite scientists who have done studies about this themselves. If I had made these claims without citations, you wouldn't have believed me, because there would have been no proof of what I was saying.

Asking me to give an entire argument that is based around scientific discovery WITHOUT citations is completely unreasonable. I'm 17 years old, and I am not capable of sending a probe into space or studying quantum physics to the degree of coming up with my own evidence to present to you.

The only part of my argument that needed citations was the science. I didn't use citations for the framework, and I didn't use them when refuting what little points you actually made.

You need to understand that there is a difference between presenting evidence to support a claim you made, and copying and pasting someone else's argument entirely. I understand why you think oral debates are better than this, because if this was an oral debate, I probably wouldn't have been able to tell that your argument was plagiarized.
Posted by philippines1946 6 years ago
Well, Citation it is, but those citations are your whole argument it does not change any thing, if you want the brain to absolutely function on its own with out any help then even citations are not exempted. In these case the citations fill the whole of your argument they are not what it seems to be, I can get your point for your citations - to back up your claim but as it appears you have only a claim then you have let those citations to redirect me and let them answer the question for you, instead of you using them as a small source only, your whole statement are the citations itself! Its unfair for I used my OWN words in my own opening statement then in return you used citations to fill most of your own statement then you would say that "no one should copy from other sources" then you violated your own principle for in this case the citations are the statement itself. I suppose this is what online/ written debate could do this cannot prove anything of a person, Oral debates are much better to this.
Posted by Mrparkers 6 years ago
I didn't copy anything from a site at all. The youtube video was listed as one of my citations, if you had looked closer. The whole idea behind debating is giving evidence to support your claims, that's what citations are for. Each number I put is a reference to evidence that backs up a claim I made. I put that youtube video there because I used that video as a source for one of the arguments I made. By no means did I plagiarize anything that I said, unlike you, who copied and pasted your entire argument from a website.
Posted by philippines1946 6 years ago
I wouldn't do that if you have not started. My first statement is purely my own, but in response you have copied and even posted a video from another site, if you agree that no one should copy from any site, then you should refrain from using any other sources but your own brain but I can even see the numbers "[2]", if so then why have you? In that case only few words which is more on the conclusion is made by you base on your evaluation on the statements of others, now you state that you made your own? I watched that video it may be convincing but still not of your own, with that statement I have lost interest to this debate and if you have copied your response then why can any body do the same, since this debate is now useless for your first response. I am just asking a simple question.
Posted by Mrparkers 6 years ago
I'm really disappointed, dude. You copied and pasted your ENTIRE third round argument from another website. Did you honestly think I wouldn't notice?

Seriously, I've been in so many debates with people that plagiarize their arguments, and all it does is make the debate less fun because it's basically an automatic win for me.

Please stop copying your arguments from now on, try using your own words to debate me instead of taking someone else's. This is your debate, not theirs.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ixaax 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by mecap 6 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro plagiarized and forfeited. Poor conduct on Pro's side (plagiarism) so the conduct point goes to Con. Con had more convincing arguments, whereas Pro had none. Con used much highly reliable sources, therefore sources go to Con too.