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

God 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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,809 times Debate No: 74729
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (55)
Votes (3)




This is a direct challenge to lannan13. I thank Lannan for this debate.

Full Resolution

God most likely exists.

BoP is shared.


God - a supernaturally powerful, immensely great, transcendent, and intelligent creator and ruler of the universe.

Exist - have physical, objective reality.


1. Forfeiture is not allowed.
2. No deconstruction semantics/trolling/kritiks.
3. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be within the debate or in an external link (e.g. comments section, closed debate, Google Docs).
4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.

Debate Structure

Round 1: Pro's case
Round 2: Con's case, Pro rebuts Con's case
Round 3: Con rebuts and defends, Pro rebuts, defends and concludes
Round 4: Con rebuts, defends and concludes, Pro waives (by typing "round waived")

I look forward to an interesting debate.


Contention 1: The Ontological Argument

Dating as far back as the Saint Anslem, as this argument has been honnored by philosphers on every side of the spectrum. I shall be definding the version of this argument that was made popular by Alvin Plantinga. His model uses the S5 model and thus is immune to the popular arguments against that philospher Kant has made and hence making Kant's argument void. I shall also argue another point made famous by William CriagThe Argument is bellow.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. [1]

Here we can see that we can already see that on face value that it is possible that God exists. Due to this small plausability we can see that at any slight chance proves that there is a God in some reality and hence this reality. In order for Con to disprove God he must show that it is impossible in every possible circumstance. Now as we look at the premise 1 and 2 we can see that God can exist which leads me into my S5 argument.
S5: If possibly necessarily P, then necessarily P [2]
We can see with this applied to the above portion of premise 1 we can see that God can exist simply with their being a possibility and the only way to negate it would be to show that there is no possible way that God can exist in any given circumstance. When we follow this string of beliefs we can see that since God can exist in other worlds he can exist in reality and thus actually exists.This excludes metaphysics as we can see that if we observe a black hole it sucks in matter and a worm hole allegedly leads back out. But what if we look at how Neil Tyson depicted it as inside the black hole in his novel, Death by Black Hole, purposed that actually inside a black hole could cause another universe from the hot matter that inside. We cannot find God as the original black hole has evapporated via Hawking Radiation and there is no way to get back to him (except through death, but that's an entirely different debate) so we can only wait for us to be contacted by him.

Contention 2: Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (which I'll start refurring to as the KCA in order to save space) was created by William Lane Craig and is a simple theory that I have bellow.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. [3]

The first premise is true by the very laws a physics as it is a law of Conservation of Mass as it shows that Matter cannot be neither created nor destroyed. Meaning that the Universe cannot have been spontanously created as Big Bang opponent Flyod has stated. We can also see that things are not spontanous here. Like why doesn't the Earth suddenly expload? This is because the very laws of Physics binds and restrics nothingness so we can see that for one to question the first premise would be to question regualrity.

Now let us move on to the second premise here which is backed both by scientce and philosophy. Craig agrues using the Brode-Gruth-Velikum Theory that through the use of Red shift which shows that the universe is exspanding we can actually see that the universe, even if it is part of some multi-verse, still had to be created. [3] The philosophical side of this argument is that though many argue that the universe may be infinate the thing is that it is highly unlikely for things to exsist in an infinate chain and are thus had to have a starting finite point somwhere. Even if we look at Tyson's theory on how this universe started and that it is a multiverse we can still see that the universe, this one, had a beginning.

Now at this point you're probably asking yourself, okay Lannan that shows that the universe began at a point, but what does this have to do with God? This is that there is nothing known prior to the creation of the universe meaning that it since there is no determining factors to what happened before we must assume that it's personal and uncaused. This can be see by one asking how can a timeless rift be given such a temperory effect of the begining of time? One has to be extremely powerful in order to create the universe if not omnipotent. Thus for this reason God Exists.

Contention 3: TA Arguement

Here we can observe Saint Thomas Aquinas's theory on teleologic which is the ultamate causes of objects or actions in relation to their ends. This is from the 5th of Thomas Aquinas's theories explaining the existance of God. His theory is bellow.

1. If teleology exists, then an ordering intellect exists.
2. Teleology exists.
3. Therefore, an ordering intellect exists.

Here for the first part we may see that teleos exists on the basis that there must be intentionality and this exists in the mind. Hence one can see that if teleology truely exists then there must be intellect for it to be grounded to in the end. For this I site Edward Feser who states, "Where goal-directness is associated with consciousness, as it is in us, there is no mystery. A builder builds a house, and he is able to do so because the form of the house exists in his intellect because it is instantiated in a concrete particular object. And of course, the materials that will take on that form also exist already, waiting to take it on." [4]
So ask yourself, does teleology exist? Obvious, does the heart beat and pump blood because it just happens? No, it has a valid purpose of pumping blood to keep you alive. Without teleology there would be no purpose. We can see that from everyday occurance by using this. I mean how else are we to say that a carborator needs replaced if it does not have a purpose? When we observe other things that are inorganic like the Nitrogen and Water Cycle we can see that they too have purpose and are thus teleological by nature. [5]
We can see that since all teleology has to be grounded to a singel being in the universe. It is obvious that this high being has nothing else higher than it and is thus the greatest being in the universe which it would make sense to call this said being God.

Last year scientists have actually found ripples in time and space continum. Now I know what my opponent had brought up and I agree with a lot of it, however, I believe that it actually helps prove the existance of God than disproves it. We can see after the Big Bang there was gravitational strips in the universe that ripped it appart in seconds. [6] We can actually see that a very very simplified version of this is in the Bible.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."- Genesis 1:1

You see, back then they didn't have a large understanding on the universe and how things worked so we can definately see books like the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran to probably not be science text books. If God had shown humans this we can see that they would probably be like Nastrodamus's description of the German Blitzkreig by calling the NAZI panzers Metal beasts or how he wasn't able to describe skyscrapers and such, but you get my point. People didn't have the best information and how things are now and it wasn't until just a couple hundred years ago before we began to make improvements in Space and Science.

6. Everything that had a beginning in time has a cause.
7. The universe had a beginning in time.
8. Therefore the universe had a cause.
9. The only thing that could have caused the universe is god.
10. Therefore, god exists. [7]

For the 6th premise we have already found that is true, so let's move on to the next premise.

Now for the 7th premise Ross writes this in support.

"By definition, time is that dimension in which cause-and-effect phenomena take place. No time, no cause and effect. If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and preexistent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who god is and who or what god isn't. It tells us that the Creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe." [8]

Here we can see that there has to be an entity controlling time and something had to come before time. That the entirety of everything had another dimension and this God was in another dimension and created the universe and all the laws of physics that we are still yet to even begin to comprehend. He later to go on to further back this up by providing Biblical verses and stating that it has to be that God has another time dimension and this is one of the reasons that we do not have concrete proof of him yet as we have yet to be able to travel in other dimensions. [8]

Sources in comments section.
Debate Round No. 1


I. Greatness

Greatness is a purely subjective property, which entails a relative understanding according to what is “great” according to each line of perception. All subjective properties require a standard to describe the level of that property.

For example, there is a universe with a single pencil and nothing else. In such a universe, you cannot say the pencil is “small”, as there is no definition of “small” without anything else to measure against, i.e. something larger, so that one knows this is “smaller”. Thus, such a property requires a standard.

So what is the standard to God’s “greatness”? The standard must be:

a) Internal to God

b) External to God

A standard being internal to God begs the question. A standard external to God contradicts his position as transcendent to the universe. Thus, with no standard to match up against, a great God’s existence is incoherent.

To negate this without ad hoc explanations, my opponent has to prove that greatness is an objective property, which would require a highly specific definition of “greatness.”’ Greatness is the quality of being “great”, which is defined as: “of an extent, amount, or intensity considerably above average”, or “of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above average.” [1] What is the supposed mark of “average” here? It is logically incoherent to measure greatness objectively, thus the qualities of greatness and transcendence will contradict each other if together.

As God is defined as being “immensely great”, God requires a standard to be “immensely great”, and without such a standard, is incoherent if real.

II. Incoherence of a Caused Universe

Requirements for Causality

Physicist Sean Carroll notes two features that are necessary to speak of causality, time and the laws of nature. [2] Causality is incoherent without these features. Sans physical laws we lack the unbreakable principles that don’t allow for things to “just happen”, without the arrow of time, which, in turn, is based on entropy via. the second law of thermodynamics [3], we cannot coherently talk about ”before” or “after”, necessary in order to say “X caused Y to be”, moreover it also entails there is no absolute “first”. Outside of, and prior to, the universe, there are no physical laws, nor is there entropy. Without these, causality is incoherent, thus the universe cannot have been caused. Let us, thus, structure this argument in the following manner.

P1: If God exists, the universe has a cause.

P2: The universe cannot have a cause.

C: God cannot exist.

P1 is true by definition, as God is the cause of the universe. P2 is affirmed by Sean Carroll’s observation that causality is incoherent without time and the laws of nature.

Eternalism & Relativity

According to general relativity, space is “stretchable”. This was confirmed by the Friedmann observations and Hubble’s Law, that were used by Georges Lemaitre to propose the Big Bang theory, that states the universe is expanding, which is shown via. the cosmological redshift. [4] The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem, derived by Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin, further supports the theory that the universe is expanding. [5]

General relativity also yields “eternalism” or block universe, where the past, present and future are all equally “real”, and the passage of time is both true AND illusory via. the B-theory of time. General relativity models time as a “fourth dimension” of space itself, allowing for the block universe theory to be likely true. Causality cannot be stressed on unless one assumes the presentism ontology of time, which is dubious in light of scientific discoveries supporting eternalism, especially special and general relativity. “Many [scientists and philosophers] have argued against presentism on the grounds that presentism is incompatible with the theory of relativity.” [6]

In special relativity, each observer has their own “plane of simultaneity”, a small section of three-dimensional space where all events are simultaneous. [7] "Special relativity suggests that the concept of simultaneity is not universal: according to the relativity of simultaneity, observers in different frames of reference can have different perceptions of whether a given pair of events happened at the same time or at different times, with there being no physical basis for preferring one frame's judgments over another's (though in a case where one event A happens in the past light cone of another event B, all frames will agree that A happened in the past of B). So, in special relativity there can be no physical basis for picking out a unique set of events that are all happening simultaneously in ‘the present’.” [8] This entails eternalism.

III. Argument from Atemporal Minds

P1: God is atemporal.

P2: God has a mind.

P3: Minds are processes and/or involve processes.

P4: All processes are temporal.

C1: An atemporal mind cannot exist.

C2: Therefore, God cannot exist.

P1 is true as God is transcendent, ergo external to the universe. Outside of the universe, and, thus, outside of the space-time continuum by definition, there is no time. Therefore, God has to be atemporal.

P2 is true by definition, as God is intelligent. Intelligence is incoherent without a mind, ergo God has a mind/is a disembodied mind.

P3 is accurate as we don’t have a quantitative understanding of “intelligence”, which here requires a highly specific definition of “intelligence”, which must be a subjective property unless it has a process. Subjective properties are incoherent if paired with transcendence, as noted by the incoherence of “greatness” as a property, thus intelligence has to be objective for the existence of God as a mind, ergo it must involve a process. To argue a mind is not a process is to also concede that the entity is static, and essentially non-causal, thus the mind must involve a process by definition.

P4 follows as if time doesn’t exist, then there will obviously be no arrow of time. An “arrow of time” is necessary for temporal passage. For something to coherently “happen”, there has to be time, thus all processes require an arrow of time to be coherent.

IV. Inference


The Law of Parsimony, a form of Occam’s Razor, posits that in a group of equally likely explanation, the one with least number of assumptions is a priori most likely. [9] Theism, or even deism, has greater number of assumptions than atheistic metaphysical naturalism. The former assumes the existence of a physical universe, its laws AND God, the latter only assumes the existence of a physical universe and its laws. Therefore, if the existence of God is not required and the functioning of the universe can do without the addition of God, then the other explanation is more likely. [10]

Causality Is Not Required

According to the zero-energy universe hypothesis, the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero, as the scalar “positive” energy it contains is balanced out by the attractive vector ‘negative’ force of gravity. [11-12] “In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero. It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains kinetic energy as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.” [13]

So how did the universe originate? Edward P. Tryon proposed that the universe itself is a vacuum fluctuation. This may be partly true. Due to quantum uncertainty, a particle and an antiparticle may form in the quantum vacuum and annihilate to release two photons. The photons would generally “pop” out of existence in a period shorter than Planck time, unless the photons are ‘canceled’ out in net energy by the uncaused creation of vector gravity by this very fluctuation. [14-15] Lawrence Krauss says, “[I]f the total energy in the universe is zero, the universe could have been caused by uncaused quantum fluctuations.” [16]

The fluctuations and gravity originate from the limited energy of the quantum vacuum that literally came “out of nothing”. This conflicts with standard intuition via. Parmenidean ontology, that says “ex nihilo nihil fit”, literally “out of nothing comes nothing.” But recent research says this ‘rational intuition’ is flawed.

But what is the proof of this, one might ask. It is virtually proven by the homogeneity of normal energy distribution across the universe. Furthermore, general relativity tells us that space is curved. This means that the shape of the universe would have to be ‘closed’ (about the same structure as a sphere), ‘open’ (a curved sheet), or flat. If the universe IS flat, the sum of all net energy in the universe would be zero. Lawrence Krauss says, “If our universe was closed, if we look far enough [forward], we would see the back of our heads.” This is because of the reflection of light across such bent space. An open universe would expand forever, and there would be no end to the constant expansion of the universe. Krauss continues, “Weighing the universe tells us what the curvature of the universe is. … If we can weigh all clusters of galaxies in the universe, we can weigh all the mass and energy in the universe using general relativity. … [W]e can weigh [a] system using general relativity. … [I]n a flat universe, the total energy in the universe is precisely zero. … And right now we know to a chance of error of 1% that the universe is flat.” [16]

Sources in comments.



Contention 1: Greatness

Though greatness may be subjective we can get this, as Con said, by comparing him to other things, however, the flaw with my opponent's argument is that something of this maximium greatness can indeed be compared. It is imagined that God is the Maximuimly Great Being (Ontological Argument) meaning that there is nothing greater than God. Everyday we learn of new things in the universe from Blazars to Kugleblitzes. Comparing something to this seems to be impossible, but the laws of Physics can indeed be broken. Let's observe the Kugelblitz. This is something that is so hot, that it is hotter than temperature (Plank's Constant), because of this intense heat it immidiately causes a black hole in space time. [1] We can already see that in modern science that our laws of Physics and nature can be defied and if something like a Kugelblitz can defy what we think to be the very escense of the universe then why can't this God that seems to do the exact same also exist?

My opponent asks what is average? Once again this pertains to perspective. From what do we look at it from? If we are an ant then surely humans are above average. Meaning that we ourselves would observe ourselves as average. Though humans like to think of it different and we like to think of ourselves as the center of the universe. This has been proven that if we had two very identical universes, but slightly different we could line up any two points in that universe and find that the individual point is the center, but we can also do it for any other point as well. [2] This actually reveals that humans beings are NOT the center of the universe and the actual center is, everywhere. This means that since the humans aren't the center of the universe something else is. Since the universe is so large and exspansive we don't know where we can see that this can only be a Maximumly Great Being as the center and thus has no choice, but to be Maximiumly Great.

Contention 2: Incoherence of a Caused Universe

I can agree with the Big Bang and the BGV as it supports my own arguments, but I shall be refuting externalism. John Lucas, philosopher, argued that, "The Block universe gives a deeply inadequate view of time. It fails to account for the passage of time, the pre-eminence of the present, the directedness of time and the difference between the future and the past[3]" He raised three key issues with externalism.

      1. We apparently fear death because we believe that we will no longer exist after we die. However, if Eternalism is correct, death is just one of our temporal borders, and the forms of the world with you alive in it would continue to exist even as one consciously moves forward through time toward dissolution.

      1. You are about to go to the dentist, or you have already been. Commonsense says you should prefer to have been. But if Eternalism is correct, then a resemblance of you in the future is already feeling better.

      1. When some unpleasant experience is behind us, we feel glad that it is over. But if the Eternalism is correct, there is no such property as being over or no longer happening now—it continues to exist timelessly, alongside eternal, unchanging moments of perfect contentedness.

Here we can see that there are several issues. It is obvious that when we die that we do not continue to exist. This shows that all points in time would eventually led to your death, but they could not already exist or all meet the end as it would violate the simplicity of externalism as it would have to show that you are still existing in some possible point in time. The second point is also key as it shows that we would preferred to have already have done something vs. currently doing the thing, but under externalism wouldn't it already make sense that if we've already done it that we'd already have the benefits and hence not needing to do it in the present creating a paradox that contradicts this theory. The third point shows that we would always be suffering as we would always be expierencing a moment now, but at the same time feeling content that it is over while also feeling pain and suffering which is impossible.

On the matter of proving God by doing mathematics we can see that this is indeed possible as Scientist Godel has actually given the following proofs for God and they just so happen to fall under this contention.

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property [8]
Axiom 4 has been stated that it must be necessary and is possible to point out the good in all things. Godel himself had stated that, "Postitive means that in a positive moral aestetics sense. It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation." [8] The other Axioms can be summed up to be an ultrafilter which I'll get into a little later on. The Axioms can be translated into the following theorums and math equation.

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Theorem 2: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 3: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 4: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified. [9]

Now we can see that this mathematical equation was actually done and proven. With it being solved we can see that it brings up great and highly valid evidence that God exists. People used the above theorums and axioms through the use of LEO-II and Statallax. [10]

Contention 3: Atemporal Minds

Much of this is correct, but there are a few inaccuracies. For example, you argue that God and his mind contradict, but it is unlikely. How we come to this conclusion is ironically provided by your own argumentation. You see God is outside of time and this relm, but since he also does things in this relm then spacetime becomes a factor. So we can see that everything can exist outside of the relm of spacetime, but once it comes on to this plane then it is affected as his own actions and words are in the Bible and we can see that this is obvious and thus by this own argumentation that God can exist.

Contention 4: Inference

This opening part was already refuted when I have shown that the laws of physics can be broken due to Kugelblitzs and even when we look at the opening moments of the Big Bang and even black holes we can see that the laws of Physics become broken down meaning that there is some missing key part that is included here in this part and it is simply that of God. [4] [5] In a lecture Steven Hawkins showed that when the universe was created that if it were created as shown in the Bible it had to have been by God and it is backed by the fact that the Laws of Physics cannot explain singularities that there has to be devine intervention.

Steven Hawkins in his book, Grand Design, argued that, "If the total energy of the universe must always remain zero, and it costs energy to create a body, how can a whole universe be created from nothing? That is why there must be a law like gravity. Because gravity is attractive, gravitational energy is negative: One has to do work to separate a gravitationally bound system, such as the Earth and moon. This negative energy can balance the positive energy needed to create matter, but it’s not quite that simple. The negative gravitational energy of the Earth, for example, is less than a billionth of the positive energy of the matter particles the Earth is made of. A body such as a star will have more negative gravitational energy, and the smaller it is (the closer the different parts of it are to each other), the greater the negative gravitational energy will be. But before it can become greater (in magnitude) than the positive energy of the matter, the star will collapse to a black hole, and black holes have positive energy. That’s why empty space is stable. Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can." [6]

Meaning that if you remember my sourcing of that of Neil Tyson in my last round you can see that God's causation and interfearance in the creation of the universe is possible by simply that of a Supernova followed by a black hole. This Black hole could have easily created the universe that we live in today and can actually explain the constant Big Bang-Big Crunch cycle that astrophysicists have hypothesised. [7]
Debate Round No. 2


R1) Ontological Argument

a) MOA

P1’s S5 axiom is unsound

As Pro mentioned, Plantinga’s modal ontological argument uses the S5 modal logic axiom, “If possibly necessarily P, then necessarily P.” [1] This completely fails the following analogue from de Morgan’s laws from Boolean algebra: “It is ‘not necessary that X’ is logically equivalent to ‘it is possible that not X’, and also ‘it is possible that X’.” [2]

This axiom is a bare assertion. Furthermore, it makes no sense, thus is easily subject to reductio ad absurdum, viz. if something P is possible, then it’s necessary. Since Pro does not justify the assertion of P1, I shall assume Pro considers a state of possibility to be the ‘default’ state. Therefore, P is possible unless proven otherwise. Reductio ad absurdum:

P1: The existence of a Chimera is possible, thus existing in some possible world.

P2: If possibly necessary P, then necessarily P (S5).

C: If P is the “Chimera’s existence”, then the Chimera’s existence is necessary, thus the Chimera exists.

The primary fallacy with both these arguments is that P1 begs the question.

Epistemic vs. Metaphysical Possibility

P1 requires a highly specific definition of “possible” to be valid. This ontology would need to demonstrate metaphysical possibility. Instead, it merely affirms epistemic possibility, with great distinction. A statement of epistemic possibility implies a statement of “possible for all I know”, where a state of possibility is considered a ‘default’ state. [3-4]

Thus, P1 is a bare assertion.

Reverse MOA

The reverse premise, “It is metaphysically possible that God does not exist”, entails the reverse conclusion: “God does not exist”, via. the same S5 modal axiom, wherein it is both epistemologically and metaphysically possible because of Occam’s Razor. If P implies God’s existence, it implies an additional assertion, and, thus, is merely epistemic unless proven to be metaphysical. But if P implies God’s non-existence, parsimony would allow for it to be metaphysically possible if and only if God is not necessary. [5]

Both premises cancel each other out, and, thus, the same structural format implies that ontology cannot necessitate God’s existence via. modal logic.

b) Godel OA

Godel’s axioms and theorems are all bare assertions, and commit the same error in showing only epistemological and not metaphysical probability. Axiom 3 says “the property of being God-like is positive”, but this is not proven. ‘Positivity’ is a subjective property, and, as mentioned in the ‘greatness’ argument, requires a standard to be objective. Pro must expand on these bare assertions, especially the assumption that the property of being God-like is objectively positive.

Theorems 2 and 3 assume that existence is a property. This must be appropriately justified, or will be considered bare assertions.


a) Causality is not required

The Law of Conservation of Mass is falsified by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, which allows quantum uncertainty to create a particle and an antiparticle that annihilate and release two photons that ‘pop’ out of existence as a vacuum fluctuation. [6] But if the photons (or other energy) are/is ‘canceled out’ by the attractive negative energy of gravitational force, the net energy created would be zero, thus they wouldn’t have to cease existing. [7] If the universe is ‘flat’, its net energy would be zero via. the zero-energy universe hypothesis, and it is known to a chance of error of 1% that the universe is flat, thus the zero-energy universe hypothesis is likely true. [8] What caused those vacuum fluctuations? The quantum vacuum, which literally came out of ‘nothing’. “What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. … [T]he energy could have come out of nothing. … The meaning of nothing here … could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.” [9]

The inflation of the universe after the Big Bang.

As Pro notes, the Earth doesn’t explode because it’s bound by the physical laws of nature that govern the functions of the universe. But prior to, or outside of, the universe, there are no physical laws, nor is there time, thus there’s no need to believe there was a cause of the universe. Sans physical laws and time, causality is incoherent.

I also challenge the premise “everything that had a beginning in time had a cause”, as the same rebuttals as above can refute the mentioned premise.

Pro self-refutes quoting The Grand Design, that says, in Pro’s own quote, that “a whole universe can [appear out of nothing].” [10] That the laws of physics can be broken *strengthens* my point, as Pro cites the Conservation of Mass to support the first premise of the KCA. Furthermore, the black holes strengthen my point here as black holes have gravitational singularities that can breach physical laws. Thus, causation of the universe is not *required*, and Pro refutes their own premise.

b) BGV theorem


Now to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. Pro’s interpretation of the BGV theorem assumes a presentism ontology of time, which is dubious in light of special relativity, which suggests divergence of the planes of simultaneity, entailing four-dimensionalism and, thus, eternalism and a block-universe model. [11] Pro also assumes without evidence the ‘A-series’ model of time, i.e. the A-theory of time, which is unlikely in light of general relativity. [12] Furthermore, the cosmological redshift merely shows that the universe is expanding, and shows that it must have begun expanding at some point. [13] This classical interpretation of spacetime is largely inaccurate, thus this usage of the BGV theorem is flawed.

Defense of Eternalism

Pro’s refutation of this assumes that the future is *non-contingently* real and necessary. But for something to be ‘real’, it need not be *necessary*. The block universe model can advocate for the past, present and future to be *contingently* real. This completely refutes all Pro’s points regarding this, as Pro assumes a non-contingent reality of the future, which is not a prediction of eternalism.

Thus, I have refuted the KCA.

R3) TA

The supposed ‘design’ in the universe is entirely relative. Objective design is self-contradictory, since telos is a subjective property by definition. Since telos is relative, there is telos that is attributed and telos that is prescribed. Attributed telos is entirely subjective, thus irrelevant. Pro needs to effectively demonstrate the latter.

The teleological argument hardly argues for God as defined so much as an ordering intellect. Why does such a being need to be objectively ‘great’ or ‘powerful’?

P1 is hardly justified. An “ordering intellect” is not required to generate telos. Telos can be generated by anything, such as evolution via. natural selection. Intentionality is not required for design.

Furthermore, Pro needs to specify what form of “telos” he refers to. P2 is a bare assertion; is the prescribed ‘design’ in life or the physical universe generally, and how? Design is entirely based on perspective.

C1) Greatness

a) God existed prior to the universe, when there was nothing. In this stage, it is impossible to compare greatness with anything, as God was the only existent entity. Therefore, this point still stands.

b) The laws of physics are irrelevant to the non-cognitivism of greatness as an objective property. Pro is yet to justify God’s objective greatness.

c) Pro concedes that greatness is based on perspective. God is defined as being “immensely great.” But if even one mind perceives God as not great, then via. Pro’s own logic, God is not great. Pro must then prove that every mind in the universe perceives God as ‘great’, or this argument still stands.

C2) Incoherence of a Caused Universe

a) Pro *drops* Sean Carroll’s observation that time and the laws of nature are necessary for causation to be coherent. This is completely and entirely ignored. I forward the contention to this round.

b) The objections to eternalism and the B-theory of time have been addressed, as Pro assumes eternalism perceives the future as non-contingent. Eternalism implies lack of temporal change, which makes causation of the universe completely incoherent.

C3) Argument from Atemporal Minds

a) Pro confuses the Biblical God with the God defined here. In the debate, I provided the definition of God to be transcendent to the universe, which means he is not within spacetime at all. Therefore, God has no direct interaction with time itself.

b) Even IF God interacts with spacetime, God has to be transcendent at some point by the debate’s definition, and the argument renders even that impossible and incoherent. Therefore, Pro’s objection does not properly address this argument and is absurd.

C4) Occam’s Razor

Pro drops Occam’s razor entirely. Since I have demonstrated how causation is not required in my objection to the KCA, God is not required and is a useless addition to the universe. Therefore, the existence of God is a priori improbable via. the Law of Parsimony. [14]

On this, philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) wrote, “If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.” [15]

Sources in comments.



Contention 1: Ontological Argument

According to Con, the greatest problem to my Ontological Argument is that of my S5 model. If he had observed my opening argument he would've seen that the move from <>[]P -> []P is perfectly warranted and axiomatic given the S5 axiom of modal logic. If the said being exists in one world it must exist in all possible worlds by following the model and thus proving MAXIMUM GREATNESS. Which not only proves this argument but Con's Greatness argument as well. [3]

My opponent's counter-syllogism fails from the beginning. P1 is false because it conflates epistemic possibility with metaphysical possibility. It may be epistemically possible that a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world, but its metaphysical possibility does not follow. After all, it's epistemically possible that Goldbach's conjecture is either true or false, but it does not follow that either is a genuine metaphysical possibility. In the same way, one may be able to conceive of assert the non-existence of an MGB, but there was no metaphysical implications from this. Conceivability does not entail possibility. Thus proving that there has to be a MGB and God has no logical choice, but to exist. [3] I'll attack the OR in a later contention.

My opponent's attack is flawed as this has indeed been proven already as scientists have tested this theory and found that it is logically sound. [4] and [5]

Contention 2: KCA

There has to indeed to be causality. If there wasn't then we could see anything just "pop" into existance. I have already shown in my last round by using Neil Tyson's book, "Death by Black hole" showing that the entire universe that we currently live in can actually be created from a black hole and this matter and everything was just simply created by teh nuebla's and star dust that got sucked up by the black hole. [1] In fact, we see that it is a logically necessary truth, the denial of which is self-contradictory. As David Oderberg argues:

We are asked to countenance the possibility of the following situation: the nonexistence of anything followed by the existence of something. The words “followed by” are crucial — how are they to be interpreted? What they cannot mean is that there is at one time nothing and at a subsequent time something, because the nonexistence of anything is supposed toinclude time: to say that at one time there is nothing whatsoever is self-defeating because it is to say that there is a time at which nothing exists — hence something did exist. But it is hard to see how else we are supposed to understand “followed by”; or when the denier of the causal principle says that it is possible for something to come from nothing what are we to understand by “from”? Again it cannot have a causal sense because something is supposed to have come into existence uncaused. All that appears to be left is a timeless contradiction — the existence of nothing and the existence of something. [1]

Dan Baker, a nutorious opponent of the KCA, has argued upon several times that the only thing in existance that does not need a valid cause is actually that of God. Everything from the creation of the universe, to a kugelblitz all need some sort of causality and it is obvious that God has to be the only one to have created us. First, the modified-P1 is simply not logically equivalent to P1. If we recast the KCA using M-P1, then the argument becomes structurally invalid. Second, M-P1 confuses meaning with reference. The two premises may refer to the same object, but their meaning is obviously different. Third, whereas M-P1 is framed in terms of being an existential statement (One which asserts the existence of something), P1 is a universally quantified statement. Consider the formalized version of the argument:

1. (x) (Bx -> Cx)
2. Bu
3. Cu

Where B = begins to exist; c = cause, u = universe.

My opponent argues that my usage of the BVG theory is flawed, but that is incorrect, because we have no choice but to see that the universe is exspanding and contracting in several different areas even to the point some argue of a Big Crunch. (see video for physical evidence on teh BVG theory) (

My opponent is incorrect on theory of time, because time is a constant stream like a river, not always constant all happening at different points at once. I have shown the flaws with Eternalism in my last round and my opponent has not refuted it, so I'll extend that argument across the board.

Contention 3: TA arguement

I thought I was being specific on teleos. My opponent is highly incorrect as he tries to shake off teleos as mere natural addaptions, but this is incorrect. Teleology is understood to be mere goal-directedness, final causality, which is shared by both natural and artificial teleology (Both involve goal-directnedness). His distinction is thus useless.

Con dropps my Steven Hawkins and Neil Tyson evidence on God and the theories of the universe, so I'll extend those across.

Contention 4: Occam's Razor

Occam's Razor sides with the group that makes the least assumptions. We can see that the universe having a maker and creating everything is a lesser assumption than the universe being created out of nothing at some point. (though I thought I already argued this in an earlier contention) Plus my opponent has already conceded that the universe has to have had a cause and when you add in the fact when he dropped my Steven Hawkins argument that God didn't need a cause we can see that this case and this point withstands the OR.

I would like to thank my opponent for this wounderous debate and I would like to ask my viewers to please vote Pro.
Thank you.

Debate Round No. 3


R1) Ontological Argument

a) MOA

Soundness of S5 modal axiom interpretation

Pro merely defends his interpretation of the S5 modal axiom with bare assertions, dropping the fact that it contradicts de Morgan’s laws of Boolean algebra, which takes precedence over modal logic. [1] Furthermore, Pro’s interpretation of the S5 axiom is flawed. The primary axioms of S5 modal logic are the following. [2]

“If necessarily (A → B), then necessarily A → necessarily B.”

“A is necessarily A.”

“If possibly A, then possibly necessarily A.”

Now, Pro’s interpretation of S5 would be a Plantingan interpretation, where if A is true in one possible world, i.e. A is possible necessary, then A is true in all possible worlds. [3-4] In other words, if A is possible, A is true. This was subject to a reductio ad absurdum used to demonstrate that a Chimera or Flying Spaghetti Monster is existent, which was dropped by Pro. Thus, via. standard S5 axioms, possibly A is not necessarily A.

Epistemic vs. Metaphysical Possibility

This argument is entirely dropped. Pro argues against my reverse MOA with the same, but drops the fact that the standard MOA *also* commits the same fallacy, thus is logically fallacious.

Reverse MOA

Pro argues saying God’s non-existence is metaphysically impossible. This is not justified. The universe can function without God, as God’s existence is not required, if I can refute the Cosmological and Teleological arguments. The *same* logic can prove the non-existence of God [5], thus both cancel out each other and make the Plantingan MOA logically unsound.

b) Godel OA

Completely dropped by Pro.

R2) Cosmological Argument

a) Causation is not required

I accept the universe could have been caused via. a black hole’s singularity to violate the Conservation of Energy, but that is entirely irrelevant to the first premise. The black hole could be uncaused, or could have ‘popped’ into existence. Pro says “[if it were possible] we would be able to see anything ‘pop’ into existence”, but something emerging into existence or even self-creating via. simultaneous causation does not mean *everything* would simply emerge. However subjectively absurd it may be, it is metaphysically and objectively true. [6-7]

Philosopher Quentin Smith writes, “There is sufficient evidence at present to justify the belief that the universe began to exist without being caused to do so. This evidence includes the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems that are based on Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and the recently introduced Quantum Cosmological Models of the early universe. The singularity theorems lead to an explication of the beginning of the universe that involves the notion of a Big Bang singularity, and the Quantum Cosmological Models represent the beginning largely in terms of the notion of a vacuum fluctuation. Theories that represent the universe as infinitely old or as caused to begin are shown to be at odds with or at least unsupported by these and other current cosmological notions.” [8]

b) BGV theorem

Pro asserts that I dropped his objections to eternalism, but I clearly addressed all objections. Let me quote myself from the last round: “Pro’s refutation of this assumes that the future is non-contingently real and necessary. But for something to be ‘real’, it need not be necessary. The block universe model can advocate for the past, present and future to be contingently real. This completely refutes all Pro’s points regarding this, as Pro assumes a non-contingent reality of the future, which is not a prediction of eternalism.

Furthermore, general and special relativity entail eternalism via. relativity of simultaneity and the Andromeda paradox [9], which “points out that two people walking past each other in the street could have very different present moments. If one of the people were walking towards the Andromeda Galaxy, then events in this galaxy might be hours or even days advanced of the events on Andromeda for the person walking in the other direction. If this occurs, it would have dramatic effects on our understanding of time. Penrose highlighted the consequences by discussing a potential invasion of Earth by aliens living in the Andromeda Galaxy.” [10]

Furthermore, I accept the BGV theorem, but not a classical interpretation of spacetime, which is entailed by Pro’s interpretation of the theorem.

R3) Teleological Argument

As I mentioned, telos is a purely subjective property -- what one might consider ‘well-designed’, another may consider ‘disorderly.’ This would mean a differentiation between telos that is prescribed and which is attributed, and Pro had to prove the former. This was entirely dropped by Pro. Furthermore, I mentioned telos can be generated by anything, however ‘goal-directed’ it is. As mentioned, natural selection can generate goal-directed telos, thus this argument would be entirely irrelevant to the resolution.

C1) Non-Cognitivism of Greatness

Pro says ontology proves that God is ‘great’, i.e. if God is necessarily existent in all possible worlds, he is ‘great.’ That is a *subjective* assertion of greatness, but the greatness of God has not been objectively demonstrated, thus this argument still stands.

C2 and C3: Incoherence of a Caused Universe & Atemporal Minds

Unfortunately, Pro has lost their arguments relating to this. I asked him to send me a Google Doc with the arguments, but he said it didn’t matter and to consider them dropped. Thus, I am forced to forward these contentions to this round.

C4) Law of Parsimony

“We can see that the universe having a maker and creating everything is a lesser assumption than the universe being created out of nothing at some point.”

Attributing a quality of one explanation being a “lesser assumption” is subjective and, thus, has no justification for it. I illustrated that theism has three assumptions: the existence of a physical universe with its laws and the existence of God, while a naturalistic explanation only has two assumptions. Thus, Occam’s razor demonstrates that a naturalistic explanation is a priori more likely than a theistic or deistic explanation.

Pro asserts I dropped the quote of Stephen Hawking, but I *clearly* mentioned that the quote refutes Pro’s own argument, as he says “a whole universe can [begin to exist without a cause].” [11]

Summary & Conclusion

a) MOA

I illustrated how the MOA only shows God’s existence epistemically, and is based on an incorrect interpretation of S5 modal logic that is easily subject to reductio ad absurdum.

b) KCA

I refuted P1 and P2, by showing Pro’s interpretation of the BGV theorem is flawed, justifying eternalism and the B-series, and showed that the universe could have come into existence without a cause.

c) TA

Pro dropped the majority of my points here, where I demonstrated telos is subjective, and Pro equates attributed and prescribed telos, where he should have proven the latter.

d) Greatness

Virtually dropped my rebuttals to this, as Pro’s interpretation of greatness is subjective.

e) and f) Incoherence of Causation & Atemporal Minds

Unfortunately, these arguments were dropped by Pro.

g) Occam’s razor

I justified clearly that the abduction of metaphysical naturalism is simpler than deism or theism.

Thus, vote Con. Pro must waive the next round. I thank @lannan for an invigorating debate.



3. Ibid.





8. Ibid.

9. Roger Penrose (1999). The Emperor’s New Mind. p. 393. Oxford University Press.


11. Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow (2010). The Grand Design. p. 180. Bantam Books.



Round waived.
Debate Round No. 4
55 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lannan13 3 years ago
Yeah, if it wasn't for that submission error though...
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
Thanks. The same to you. Excellent debate.
Posted by lannan13 3 years ago
Good job.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago

As I don't have a lot of time to post this, I'll be brief.

One thing I think both debaters should have done here is spent some time crystallizing what happened at the end of the debate and explaining why they won. Each of you becomes so bogged down in the individual contentions that I'm never given an overarching view. What happens if Pro wins some and Con wins some? Which contentions are most important? It's entirely unclear, and that makes deciding a debate like this very difficult. You have shared BoP, and I need to know which, if any, of these arguments can satisfy that BoP for either of you.

But you leave that up to me and your other judges.

Anyway, what becomes clear by the end is that much of Con's case stands unopposed. I can't accept Pro's response to Occam's Razor, since it comes out in the final round and he dropped it previously. Most of the other points only get minimal responses and it leaves me with little choice but to accept Con's major arguments. Pro's own arguments get a lot of ink on them, and while there's some uncertainty here in terms of who's winning them, that favors Con rather than Pro. Even if I buy that Pro is winning these overall, he's winning them to a much less significant extent than Con is winning his. And since neither of you is giving me a means to weigh arguments, I treat each of these as similarly important. Thus, I vote Con.
Posted by zmikecuber 3 years ago
that picture literally began to exist when that debate happened, which was a year ago. :P
Posted by zmikecuber 3 years ago
See here:

as you can see, the earliest use of the picture is in my debate.
Posted by zmikecuber 3 years ago
this is bad conduct.

The pictures are originally from here:

Envisage asked me for permission to use them in his debate, and I said sure, because we're friends. In any case, you should have either sourced the pictures from where you got them from, or from where they are originally from (the link above).
Posted by zmikecuber 3 years ago
you plagiarized my pictures, tejretics.
Posted by Zarroette 3 years ago
RFD (1/4)

=== God Exists vote ===

As in all "God Exists" debates, Pro has the burden of proof to show that God exists. This means that anything short of this, such as God *probably* exists, will not be good enough. I will be looking for arguments that threaten to prove that God exists.

== R1/ Ontological Argument ==

= de Morgan =

So, the standard MOA is the first contention of this debate. Immediately, I see that the de Morgan law was completely dropped by Pro, given that his response to this was re-stating the argument (or "bare assertion", as Con put it). I found the de Morgan law to be quite relevant and impactful, given that it directly negates the necessity for the 5th axiom to exist (the axiom = possible lead to possible necessarily). So, this blows a hole in the 5th axiom of the MOA, and therefore leaves the MOA not proven to be true.

There are many other points in this contention, but since the MOA cannot be proven sound, based on the fact of the dropped de Morgan argument, Pro cannot affirm that "God Exists" based on this dropped argument, regardless of what else is argued. So, this ontological argument, for this debate, does not prove God exists.
Posted by Zarroette 3 years ago
RFD (2/4)

== R2 Cosmological Argument/KCA ==

In one of the debates I voted on in the past, I remember Con having problems with disproving necessary causality, so it will be interesting to see how he handles it this time.

= a) Causation is not required =

So, both debaters agree with Pro"s premise that the universe could have been created via a black hole. The contention lies in whether there is required a cause to this black hole. Now, Pro does threaten with an argument that attempts to show that not only the universe could have been caused by a black hole, but also "a logically necessary truth" (which would fulfil the BoP). There are two points to this objection:

1)From Pro, the first argument is that the universe could have been caused by a black hole, and thus there could have been first cause to the universe. This does not quite fulfil the BoP, as not only does this argument show only that it *could* have been caused this way, but Con also shows other ways in which it could have been non-caused.

2)Quoting David Oderberg, the second objection is far more threatening. The objection is a semantical critique of "followed by", of which, it is argued, implicitly concedes that there had to be something beforehand. Now, it appears that Con doesn"t quite address this slightly different version, at least here. However, even if this were unaddressed, Con counter-arguments do not seem to rely on this particular wording, so this appears to be a bit of strawman (although I think that this large quote may have been to get across the previous point, of which has been shown to not come far enough in fulfilling the BoP. But this is a separate argument, imo).

Pro does not appear to meet the BoP. However, Pro does manage to give possibility to causation, so we will see if that can be later used.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 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 Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. Happy to discuss it.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Both participants had good Conduct. Pro committed a significant number of spelling and grammar mistakes throughout all of his argument; S/G to Con. Arguments to Con (Expanded RFD in Comments). Both participants made strong use of reliable sources, but it seems that Pro did not list his sources for R2. Given that, I award Sources to Con. Personally, I dislike the permitting of listing sources in the Comments section. If I just missed it somehow, I will correct this aspect of my vote.