The Instigator
kyleniel
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
GuitarSlinger
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points

God isn't needed for the existence of the universe.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+106
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 7 votes the winner is...
GuitarSlinger
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 144,931 times Debate No: 118944
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (245)
Votes (7)

 

kyleniel

Pro

Before there was the universe, There was nothing, Nothing, And only nothing can come from nothing, As logic says. However, In this nothing, There is nothing to support logic, So it is possible for something to come from nothing. It is also possible for the world to come from this nothing. So, There is no need for a deity.
GuitarSlinger

Con

Before there was the universe, There was nothing" - Not so sure you can assert this statement as fact. What I would argue is that something existed, But it did not consist of matter.

I think a better way to state this is "The material universe exists now. However, Before the material universe existed, It did not exist. It came to exist at some point". Would you agree as to a restate of the premise?

Using logic, And observing the world around us, We can observe/deduce the following:

1. Everything that exists, Needed something else to make it exist-- some other "agents" to bring about it's existence. That rock on the road. That tree over there. The car I drive. The computer you use. The cell phone you use. Heck, Even me and you. We did not "pop into existence" -- some other agents were necessary to bring about their existence. None of these things came into existence on their own. We observe this with our senses and science pretty much confirms this.

2. One can pretty much observe this with pretty much everything in the Material universe. You can ask this question pretty much about everything and you arrive at the same conclusion : "______________ needed something else (perhaps multiple things) to bring about it's existence. "

3. If one asks this question repeatedly, One ultimately arrives at the question of "What about matter itself? What brought matter into existence? " (reminds me of Rocky and Bullwinkle-- Wassamatta U. ).

4. Having observed things do not bring themselves into existence (see #1 and #2 above), It stands to reason that "Matter could not have brought itself into existence". Matter could not cause itself to exist-- it would need something that is "not" matter to bring about it's existence. Or, Put another way, Something "outside the material universe" would have been necessary to bring about the existence of Matter. Or put another way, Something "Immaterial" would be necessary to bring about the existence of matter.

So while I agree, "matter" could come from nothing. I would argue, SOMETHING is necessary to bring matter into existence, Since matter could not have come into existence of it's own accord. If it could, This would fly in the face of everything we observe in the material universe, Both with our senses and/or scientifically. This something would have to be immaterial (i. E. Not composed of matter itself).
Debate Round No. 1
kyleniel

Pro

1. Nothing can come from itself, It needs an external cause. So there was nothing. It's fact from its logical consistency.

2. Well, Even if something is necessary, It isn't necessarily a deity. It could be a force.
GuitarSlinger

Con

Rethinking your original post, Your argument is making an assumption that is presumed to be true: the fact that there was "nothing" before the universe came to be. Would you agree that is an assumption, And not necessarily a Truth?

I would rather say, "before the universe came to be, There was something that was NOT the universe". Now, That "something" could be either "nothing", Or it could be "something" else. I simply do not know. But I would not presume to assert as a Truth that there was absolutely nothing. . . . . .

Regarding your two points.

1. "Nothing can come from itself, It needs an external cause. " Logically speaking, This statement doesn't make sense. It, In a sense, Refutes itself. On the one hand you are saying "nothing can come from itself". That statement can actually be reworded to say "nothing can come from nothing" (substituting "itself" with "nothing", Since "itself" refers to "nothing"). But then you go on to say "it needs an external cause". Which means, If it needs an external cause, Then "nothing" can not produce "nothing"-- something other than "nothing" would be needed to produce "nothing".

This 2nd part refutes the first part-- if it needs an external cause, It needs something that is NOT nothing to cause it.

Put simply, That argument goes like this (would you agree that "itself" refers or equates to "nothing" in your statement? ). IN the argument below, "X" = "nothing" and "Y" = "itself".
Consider X and Y
1. X can come from Y, It needs an external cause.
2. X equals Y, Therefore
3. X can come from X, It needs an external cause. <---- this doesn't make sense, For if X could come from X, It would not need an external cause.

2. I will agree with you-- while logic would dictate that the Material universe would need something that is im-material to create it (i. E. Not of the material universe), This doesn't necessarily point to a GOD that created it. Let's just call it, For lack of a better word, An "Entity". Now, We are starting to see some of the characteristics of this "Entity". Or, If you want, We could even call it "Force". We've already arrived at one of the characteristics of this "force' (or entity)
1st Characteristic - Immaterial - this entity can not be composed of Matter for reasons explained above. It would defy logic set forth in the above arguments.

Keep in mind, I"m not yet calling this thing a "God", I'm just setting forth a characteristic. . . . . It would be like me saying "Man, I see this big thing in front of me. I don't know what it is, But it is Grey. " It might be too soon for me to call it an elephant, But we know something about this thing before me-- it's grey. As we start to use our reason and intellect, Perhaps this big thing will be revealed to us. Same with God. Let's not call this entity "God" yet-- let's just call it "Entity". And we know it's immaterial (not made of matter).

As a corollary to the first characteristic, A by-product of this would be this "Entity" is would not be detectable or measurable by science (as we know it). Why not? Well, Put simply, "science" measures/observes the physical material universe around us. So this Entity, As explained earlier, Would have to be "outside the physical universe". This thing. . . This entity. . . This force has no physical dimensions that could be observed (remember, It's outside the physical material universe).
Debate Round No. 2
kyleniel

Pro

What I meant was no object can come from itself.
GuitarSlinger

Con

Exactly. So, To re-state-- it has been observed that every object/creature/thing in the material universe can not create itself, Or bring itself into existence. An external cause is necessary. If one keeps asking this question of everything in the universe, One ultimately arrives at the question of "What about matter itself. How did matter come into existence. "

It follows that in order for "matter" to come into existence, Something outside of "matter" (i. E. Not made of "matter") would be necessary to create "matter".
Debate Round No. 3
kyleniel

Pro

Well, That still doesn't refute my point that it isn't necessarily a god.
GuitarSlinger

Con

Excellent observation. I think before we continue, We should probably do something we should've done in the beginning, Before we started, And that is, Agree to what a "deity" is.

*** So, May I ask you, How would you define "deity" (or if you prefer, How would you describe "deity"). ***

I ask this because I want to make sure we start off right. I want to make sure you're not expecting a "deity" to be something or do something that just isn't logical. I've had arguments where folks had the position to something akin to this: "A god (deity) should be able to make a triangle with only 2 sides ". Then, When I argue that isn't possible because it isn't logical, They counter with, With arms folded and a victorious smile on their face, "See! God doesn't exist. If an all-powerful God exists, He should be able to do ANYTHING. "

Please don"t' spend time dissecting my example above- I hope you get my point. I would just prefer we start off right and see what we both expect a "Deity" to be.

The other thing I suspect is that this discussion might take more than 5 rounds-- 50K characters is not a lot of space to discuss/debate something like "God" (Aquinas et al have written VOLUMES on the topic). Nonetheless, I"ll do my best.

Now. Back to your most recent argument. While I didn't refute your point that a "deity" isn't necessary, I think what I did argue or explain is that "some thing" is necessary to create the material universe, And that this "thing" could not be part of the material universe-- it had to be "outside" of the material universe, Not made of matter, And thus immaterial. So, This "thing" that created the material needs to be "immaterial". Would you agree?

The path I"m taking is a different path--- I'm trying to reveal characteristics of "what" created the universe. An analogy would be this: I can do my best to reveal to you the characteristics of this object in front of us. I can tell you it's large, It's grey, It has big ears and big legs, It's noisy, It's smelly, And it has a trunk. At the end of the day, If you don't believe it's an elephant, Not sure there's much more I can do, Especially if in the very beginning we agree that an "elephant" has these characteristics. At the end of the discussion you can argue, "well, If it"s an elephant, Why are there peanuts here? If this was in fact an elephant, The peanuts wouldn"t be here, Since elephants eat peanuts". Or you might say, "Nope -- an elephant is supposed to have a large horn in the middle of it's head. " I might argue that say "Hey now, You're changing your idea of what an elephant is. " I'll still challenge/debate, But I might question some things. I"m willing to debate (argue) subsequent points after debating / arguing the preliminary points.

One final point, As we debate, I'd like to address issues singularly, And not open up and try to address all issues/questions that may come up later. Let's discuss and put to rest a point, And then move on to the next. A simple analogy would be you and I are driving with a truck load of merchandise, And we come to a huge chasm/canyon in the road. You may argue we need a bridge to get everything across, I may say "No, Not necessarily. We don't HAVE to have a bridge to get everything across". You may counter with "Well, How do WE get across? How do we get all our merchandise across? Etc etc". Let's first settle the question IS a bridge the only means of getting across? Let's not try and address all subsequent questions that arise, Unless we absolutely have to. You get my point?
Debate Round No. 4
GuitarSlinger

Con

GuitarSlinger forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
245 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ORIGINAL_Johnny_Pickle_YT 1 week ago
ORIGINAL_Johnny_Pickle_YT
Lol, Eric. Perez vs ScienceManEric. Also, Science Eric, It is very possible for your opinion to change. My opinion changed so so many times when I was under 10 years old, But it has finally stabilised. Also, There is a thing missing from this god theory. I mean, Existence has always been eternal, As it is simply impossible for it to not exist, But material matter. I'm not sure about it. I mean, Reality existing is a rule simply impossible to negate, But material is not required for existence to well, Exist. So like many other things in the universe, It was just a coincidence. Move down to previous pages and find my comments for proof that life is nothing out of the ordinary. Just objects which were lucky enough to attach in a peculiar way which allowed it to receive nutrients from the chemicals surrounding. The cells of that bacteria were of course going to make itself better, Whether time consuming or not. This is called evolution. They evoluted into us. Basically, Life is not a direct thing. Neither, Is consciousness, But other things in your body are supporting it. It is like 2 of those things are red and yellow pocket torch lights, And they mix to create the consciousness which is orange. But they didn't make a new colour, It was just 2 lights being flashed at the same spot. That's what I mean by indirect. That was a coincedence, Not something like fate or a god created. The only question is how did this material matter come through a coincedence? Or maybe I am partly wrong and material matter is needed for reality and is eternal. I mean, Material matter is indestructable, So yeah. *Gasp* Video Idea!
Posted by ScienceManEric 3 weeks ago
ScienceManEric
I believe god does not exist and my opinion will not change. But no doubt if religion didn't exist we would not be where we are now. With the invention of religion we have advanced civilization and discovery.
Posted by Eric.perez 3 weeks ago
Eric.perez
Some may argue that science and religion opposes
That is farther from the truth.

Reality is faith and religion support each other

Christian catholicism orthodoxy as well as Judaism we both groups believe most definitely that God created science.
Not as in the sect the scientologists argue which scientologists they do not believe in God.

But in a balanced way Judaism as well as Christian catholicism (whether orthodoxy/byzantine or Latin rite) we all believe that science shows proof that God exists. . .

We cannot explain how the word was throughly though out and developed in such a way that everything has a structural mechanism
Is beyond our human understanding even the sea cannot be fully explored not understood same as space cannot be fully explained nor understand and space has different universes who created these universes and each planet?

The only explanation God created it

The Jewish communities as well as christian catholics we fully understand that from (byzantine/orthodox and Latin rite) we share and upheld the same view.

Some protestants sects not all protestants sects believe science and religion contradict.
That is not true science and religion cannot contradict.

There is what we call bad science, Because some try to use the name falsely science to disprove God but they cannot disprove it. Since science studies physical laws and physics explains the laws that God created on the physical world. And chemistry explains the compound compositions and how God created a toll for us to use it with logic responsibility and reason

God can create new laws and subdue it. Since he is the author of science.

This is why we say atoms cannot be created nor destroyed (in human terms since we cannot do such thing) only God can create and destroy atoms such as miracles.
Since he is the author and sovereign king of this world and heaven and crested all the universes and everything that exists far eboynd our own discoveries.

We discov
Posted by Eric.perez 3 weeks ago
Eric.perez
Part 2 )

As imperfect example similar to how a car cannot explain the ideas nor understand the mind of the inventor. The difference is that we human beings are not with artifical intelligence nor preprogrammed
Unlike machined and robots

We human beings have a sense of intelligence that God placed in us to choose whether the right thing ir the wrong thing and we are not predestined
We have the ability to make our own choices.

Such as fo goodwill or badwill and even change and repent if we want to.
Is up to us

Some natively and foolishly believe in tarot cards and places their faith in predestination which is written by mankind, So in another words they allow the predicted tarot cards written by men of how men and woman are supposed to behave and they become prisoners of that card.
And then the pretext becomes ( ooo I could not avoid it the tarot card or the horoscope predicted) and such similar absurdities
It removes the responsible elements.

Superstition is a sign of deep ignorance

The Christian catholic orthodox faith is not ignorant is wise. Similar as the Jewish religion is wise however Christian catholicism orthodoxy is a continuity of Judaism fufilled. In communion with Rome of course.

All the truths has been revealed and what is the same essential elements the same God we believe. We also believe that humanity has the ability to decide and make its own actions and are not predestined by materials nor other human beings to force our decisions.
The decisions is up to us (not as a nation but in a personal level as any single human being worldwode) to decide.

In the end we choose the results of our journeys heaven, Hell or purgatory.
Just as In a test we take we decide to study in order to success or we neglect our duties and we fail miserably because of lack of study. Is up to us to decide and learn and discipline. We choose our own journey.

God is the only one that can create
Posted by Eric.perez 3 weeks ago
Eric.perez
God is definitely needed for the world to exists.
Regardless of anyone else's opinions.

Some try to use an atheistic point of view that the world always existed and each year it only recycles
And that it has been as such for many years so in reality (according to their argument) no one knows exactly how many years the earth has.

There is another group of atheists that believe in the darwinian theory which is very antiquated, Everyone in Europe knows thst it was an unfinished novel by Darwin which was supposed only to be a hypothesis.
However he left his book unfinished and some unwise scientists believed thst it was a scientific theory. But that was not the case. It was only a novel a book.
Even atheists recognize it was only a book.

That being said.

The world would not exist without God
Yoy wonder how can every single scope of scientific magnitude be so throughly calculated and organized.
Naturally no one can every explain.

Some try to explain cosmos, And the big bang theory (which is only a theory not a scientifically reality), And other sorts of things, Some argue that rhe big bang theory was proven through the test that Switzerland did through colliding at speed of light 2 atoms in a lab and created earth. However it was only literal earth not the planet these means they used two atoms which even before this experiment existed used chemical compounds it does not explain nor prove that it can create a whole earth with water plants etc. . .

Cosmos does not explain everything neither. The world cannot be explained by chance. How come human beings and angels are the 2 creatures that can have reason and logic above any other creature?

How can space be so organized as in an orchestra and have its own sphere of hierarchical structures being the sun and evolving around the sun?

Naturally being that is above any human has to create it which always existed which we ourselves cannot fully comprehend it.
Posted by ORIGINAL_Johnny_Pickle_YT 4 weeks ago
ORIGINAL_Johnny_Pickle_YT
I enjoy watching a war. There should be more pure debate or online war websites like this. Who agrees?
Posted by Maddie.Ann15 4 weeks ago
Maddie.Ann15
Okay first of all, I don't agree and I am a Christian. But many people are saying that we believe only based on faith and that couldn't be farther from the truth. Okay ill start with the heart of Christianity, The resurrection. Now, When it comes down to it, If you can prove that the resurrection never happened, Christianity today is a lie. But first of all, There are multiple pieces of evidence, First being that there are more copies of the testaments that there are someother things that scientists tell us and we believe. Second of all, There is MEDICAL evidence that states and proves that Jesus died and it shouldve been impossible for him to rise again. But there are multiple witnesses and a whole town of people saying they saw him after he died. Now a thought could be that it was a lie or mass hallucination but how is it possible for a group that large in a time with no advanced technology to come up with that or hallucinate him. Now I'll get into the SCIENCE side of it. Basically when it comes down to it, The reasons for the big bang theory are all reasons that go against the laws that matter can be neither created nor destroyed. Now I would like to know what exploded and where and how and how we got here and its much easier in my opinion to say "in the beginning God" and yes I'm biased but you can't argue with the facts. The truth of it is, We call ours a religion, Scientists do not accept or believe that theirs is a religion too. And sadly, Were just paying for their religion to be taught in schools. In the end, I am willing to admit that mine (Christianity) is a religion, They do not admit theirs (science/big bang) is a religion. Now I would love to see some of you try and argue with that.
Posted by GodIsntRea 1 month ago
GodIsntRea
Jesus he is a cult leader (or was because he's fcking dead). He wants you to serve him - also the father - without question and govern every detail of your life, And if you don't believe in him, You will suffer forever. That is abusive relationship with manipulation (such as the threat of eternal pain) used to control through fear
People who believe in God don't need proof of his existences they certainly don't want evidence lol. They are happy with their belief. They even say things like "it's true to me" or "it's faith. " I don't believe in God because there is absolutely no scientific evidence for his existence and from what I've heard the very definition is a logical impossibility in this known universe, " comes across as both patronizing and impolite. My point being, I'm saying God doesn't exist. I'm not saying faith doesn't exist. I know faith exists. I see it all the time. But believing in something doesn't make it true. Hoping that something is true doesn't make it true. The existence of God is not subjective. He either exists or he doesn't. It's not a matter of opinion. You can have your own opinions. But you can't have your own facts. Why don't I believe in God? No, No no, Why do YOU believe in God? Surely the burden of proof is on the believer. You started all this. If I came up to you and said, "Why don't you believe I can fly? " You'd say, "Why would I? " I'd reply, "Because it's a matter of faith. " If I then said, "Prove I can't fly. Prove I can't fly see, See, You can't prove it can you? " You'd probably either walk away, Call the cops because Im black or throw me out of the window. I see nothing "wrong" in believing in a god. I don't think there is a god, But belief in him does no harm If it helps you in any way, Then that's fine with me. 75 percent of Americans are God- R08;fearing Christians; 75 percent of prisoners are God- R08;fearing Christians. 10 percent of Americans are atheists; 0. 2 percent of prisoners are atheists. There I was happily
Posted by fatdude 1 month ago
fatdude
bro you are actually supposed to debate, Kyleniel
Posted by Isc2002 2 months ago
Isc2002
I am no expert in that, But I consider that many people has stories or experiences related with a divinity.
Obviosly, Is not the only reason that I have to say that God really exist and he keeps us alive but every one can believe in whatever they want, If they want to believe in the philosophy history, Or if they want to believe in both they can, Only that I want to say is that you can't criticize the people that believes in God only because you believe only in the science evolution.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Anonymous 2 years ago
kylenielGuitarSlingerTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Have to award con the points for debating. Con gets conduct as pro forfeited (understandably but still).
Vote Placed by Debaticus 2 years ago
Debaticus
kylenielGuitarSlingerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Litterally 1 word arguments from the instigator
Vote Placed by dinachen 2 years ago
dinachen
kylenielGuitarSlingerTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree more with GuitarSlinger, cause it wouldn't make sense for the universe to just appear for no reason.
Vote Placed by eXclusua 2 years ago
eXclusua
kylenielGuitarSlingerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: As a subject, I agree that God is not need for the existence of the universe. However, my votes were based upon who had better arguments and logical tangents of thoughts that supported an opposing point of view - this was definitely GuitarSlinger
Vote Placed by Juris 2 years ago
Juris
kylenielGuitarSlingerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I am an atheist but i judge objectively. PRO made absolutely no effort to argue. Con's arguments aren't convincing but at least he put an effort. A poor argument is better than no argument at all. I am not trying to insult anyone here though.
Vote Placed by andymcstab 2 years ago
andymcstab
kylenielGuitarSlingerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: con made the better arguments.
Vote Placed by DebaterDracon 2 years ago
DebaterDracon
kylenielGuitarSlingerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Literally next to zero input from kyleniel. They provided points and then gave next to no effort in replying to the counter arguments provided by GuitarSlinger.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.