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

The Cosmological Claim. There is a supernatural creator, not constrained within time, that created a

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 536 times Debate No: 99555
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)




Assumption 1: All natural things had a starting point within time.

Proof of Assumption 1: The only rebuttal to this assumption would be to prove that all natural things did not have a starting point within time. If all natural things did not have a starting point within time, then time does not have a starting point, because time constrains all natural things, hence "starting point within time." If time has no starting point, then there has been an infinite amount of moments that have occurred before this current moment. Since an infinite amount of moments can never reach an end, any moment after will never occur, namely, this current moment. Since our moment is occurring, there is an implausibility in the counter-assumption. Therefore, "all natural things have a starting point within time."

Assumption 2: There exists a creator that brought all natural things into existence.

Proof of Assumption 2: Since, from our last proven assumption, "all natural things have a starting point within time," then there was a moment when all natural things were brought into existence. Since the definition of the word "create" means "to bring into existence," there was a moment when all natural things were created. Since any creation requires a creator to do the creating, "there exists a creator that brought all natural things into existence."

Assumption 3: The creator is not the creation itself.

Proof of Assumption 3: Since all natural things are constrained within time, all natural things could not create itself, because within the constraint of time, a creator precedes its creation. Since all natural things cannot existence prior to all natural things existing, "the creator is not the creation itself."

Assumption 4: The creator is supernatural.

Proof of Assumption 4: Since the creation was all natural things, and since the creation was not the creator, then the creator could not be a natural thing. If something is not a natural thing, by definition, it is a supernatural thing, which means existing outside of the natural world. Thus, "the creator is supernatural."

Assumption 5: The creator is not constrained within time.

Proof of Assumption 5: Since the creator is supernatural, he is not governed by the laws of this natural world. Since time constrains the natural world, the "creator is not constrained within time."

Since all five of its critical assumptions are verified, The Cosmological Claim can now be accepted as true.


Rebuttal to assumption 1:

The idea that time has a starting point is up for scientific debate. Time is relative, changing in the observer's perception when experiencing changes in velocity and gravity. The universe exists *as we know it* because of our perception of time. That is not to say that our universe did not exist before the big bang, as the matter had to have been there before it erupted in a bang. The difference is that the way in which time moved and flowed would have been perceived differently, where a third dimensional observer may not be able to perceive in such a state. Time may have had a start in the way in which we could physically observe it, but this does not mean that time had no beginning. Things having a beginning and end are subject to judgement, as ultimately all matter just moves from one place to the next.

Assumption 2 rebuttal:

There is no evidence to suggest this whatsoever. You assume that a beginning, which as stated previously is just the movement of matter from one place to the next, must come from a creator with intelligent design. Just because we as humans define the word 'create' in such a way does not give your argument any backing. You are simply using definitions and philosophy to make an argument about the observable natural world. Regardless, this assumes that everything was intentionally 'created' and not that it 'accidentally' just happened for no real reason other than the one that you give it.

Assumption 3 rebuttal:

The main point I would argue here is that this creator must be extra-dimensional in order to perceive events outside of our perception of time, whilst possessing the power to 'create'. The question I would ask is why is there only one of these beings? If he is extra-dimensional, thus allowing him to act beyond the reaches of our perception of time, then other dimensions must exist which therefore gives credence to the multiverse theory. In which case, there would be a potentially infinite number of creators. This begs the question as to why there is only one. The much simpler answer is that there is no creator.
Furthermore, all natural beings being constrained in time would only apply to their existence as living beings. As, again, matter just moves from one place to another. Matter can not be created or destroyed, it will just change forms. As matter composes the building blocks of existence, you then must ask the question if matter is a being. It is not, however, constrained by time.

Assumption 4 rebuttal:

This is essentially a literal definition of what defines supernatural, "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." This point is essentially moot, as anything beyond our understanding can be considered 'supernatural'. When talking about the origins of life and the universe, any proposed idea would essentially be supernatural until proven. Irrespectively, this does not reinforce the argument that there even is a creator.

Assumption 5 rebuttal:

Now you're making a large assumption that because it is supernatural, it defies the laws of nature. As mentioned previously, supernatural only means that we do not understand it scientifically. As scientific research evolves all the time, this does not mean that because of our current understanding of such a "being" that it defies the laws of nature, it simply means that we lack the understanding of the ways in which it can operate. Again, this does not actually provide argument that a creator exists, but simply that a man-made definition has been applied to argument without being substantiated.

Now, youre assumptions gradually become less of an actual argument. Whilst assumption 1 was interesting, and a debate in itself, your assumptions gradually degrade into applying unsubstantiated man-made definitions into situations that provide a basis for your argument. Nothing has actually been proved here as the hypothesis has been made from a philosophical observation. The scientific backing of these points is rather low. My final say on these points is that there is little to no scientific evidence to your overall claim. A creator implies that there is an intelligent mind at play who has, as you put, created everything. Yet you will find many examples of failures and flaws within these creations.

Lastly, it is no surprise that a person would seek to understand the world with the idea that a creator had intentionally created everything. Humans are highly advanced social creatures, often victims of complex social constructs. As well as this, we are immensely curious. It should then come as no surprise that humans would attempt to explain the world that they do not understand, when reaching existential thought, through a social method. It made sense for early humans to think that there is simply another "bigger man" who would rank higher than them in their social perception, one who would put all the things we have, need, want and hate around us.
Debate Round No. 1


This is a very difficult matter to argue in only 5 rounds, because confusion at one single assumption renders the rest of the argument useless until the conflict point is resolved. Therefore, I would like to just focus on Assumption 1 for now.

Time is simply stated as a record of the order of occurrences- no matter who the observer is, or where they are, or how fast they are traveling, if Event A happens before Event B, then Event A has preceded Event B in time according to that observer.

Now, let us assume there is an observer that is "stationary", and he observes Event X prior to Event Y. It can be concluded that Event X occurred at a time before Event Y, relative to his perception. Next, let"s assume there is a perceiver that can travel faster than the speed of light. (relative to the first person). If we assume Einstein"s theory of relativity to be correct, he will actually be traveling backward in time (relative to the first person). Therefore, according to his perception, Event Y will actually precede Event X, in the exact opposite order of the first person"s observations!

Now, why is this important? It is important because we must realize that, regardless of position/speed, a relative timeline exists in our natural world for each perceiver.

Let"s bring up another hypothetical situation. Let"s assume there is a world with mass that exists in a given space, yet the mass does not move (it is completely and utterly stationary). Does a time-line exist? Well, because there is only one event that just is, it can be said that there is no such thing as a time-line, but a time point, regardless of how fast an observer is traveling.

The last hypothetic case I will use to support my argument is this. Let"s say there exists mass in a constant state (no movement whatsoever) at a particular time. We will call this The Beginning. We will assume mass did not exist before The Beginning because The Beginning was infinite. But wait, we just proved that time (according to our reference point) does not pass without movement, but only exists as a time point. (If time, according to our reference point, passed without movement than every single second on earth could actually be an eternity according to our reference point; but obviously that is contradictory) Therefore, The Beginning could not be infinite, but a moment in time. Therefore, we have to conclude that each observer"s perception of time had to A) Always include constantly moving mass with events prior and prior and prior" forever; or B) Movement was stationary at The Beginning (according to each observer) and thus time began at this Beginning Point.

We cannot have infinite time without infinite movement. Either B is correct, and we can move on to assumption 2, or you would agree that there has been constant events that have occurred prior to every event that has ever occurred (according to every observers perception). And since my original assumption 1 (in round 1) proves that events could not have continually occurred prior to this moment (since then this moment would never have reached an occurring point), we have to accept "B".


To this, I have only one response: your hypothetic case would prove your argument correct if it were not for the fact that it is *hypothetic* and does not take into account constants.

A stationary moment could theoretically not be achieved because of the influence of gravity and expansion. The universe is in a constant state of movement, bodies being thrown potentially infinite distances and being attracted by other forces of gravity. Therefore a stationary state can not be achieved because the laws of nature would prohibit this from happening. Additionally, recent scientific study shows that gravity can circumvent the flow of time itself, even creating gravitational "waves". What this essentially means is that your example of observers witnessing events X and Y may be doing so because their versions of time have been distorted and are actually subject to change when and if gravity affects them more or less. Lastly, Einstein's theory of relativity does not allow for time to be travelling backwards. The theory is that the closer to the speed of light that you can achieve, the slower time will be perceived. This theory in recent years, however, is slowly being disproved. Phenomena such as quantum entanglement and wormholes allow for *faster* than lightspeed travel. Gravitational waves can also distort the timing and distance of such travel.

These do not mean that you can travel back in time, this is theoretically impossible. The only time event Y could occur before X is if the observer is closer to Y than X. Otherwise the events occur in a linear order based on their situational factors affecting their field of time. It is largely distance that plays a roll in the order we perceive events to occur. This all becomes incredibly difficult to measure and even theorise when taking into account that the observer and the events can be affected by completely different perceptions of time-altering variables. You can not, however, go back in time. This is physically and theoretically impossible. Observation has nothing to do with the actual flow of time in a forward or backward manner, but simple the rate or speed in which it flows. Essentially, the observer's perception is irrelevant in the order in which events occur, but only in when we try to catalogue them.

This in fact gives weighting to your analysis point A. Bringing this back to the original question, your assumptions of hypothetical time events does not provide evidence for a supernatural creator.
Debate Round No. 2


It can be said that any particular point in time is essentially a state of only one singular event existing. As such, time is not passing in the parameters of that single moment. The moment just "is". Therefore, my point I make in my hypothetical case is that "The Beginning" was essentially just a moment-in-time. Either A) There must have been an infinite amount of events prior to The Beginning, or else The Beginning is the first moment in time (which would mean time had a beginning starting point here).

In regards to Einstein's theory, I only brought up the possibility of traveling back in time "in-case" it existed, so that you could see that regardless if it existed or not, would not effect a linear time line that still could not go out to infinity on either end. Since you have stated that time can only go forward, although at different rates, this simplifies my argument even further. Now I only need to prove time cannot go backward forever, which my Assumption 1 (in round 1) still proves.

Regarding your last paragraph, I think you understand this and come to the conclusion that Assumption 1 can now be verified as true, that indeed time has a starting point, of which I have labeled The Beginning. You are right, however, that this does not prove a supernatural creator, by itself. That is why I had posted 4 more critical assumptions.

So now that Assumption 1 is verified, I can begin to address Assumption 2, which restated is: Since all natural things had a starting point in time, There exists a creator that brought all natural things into existence. (If you still do not accept Assumption 1 at this point, do not feel the need to argue against the rest of this post, as we have to come to a conclusion regarding Assumption 1 first before proceeding).


Regarding your rebuttal to Assumption 2, the argument I think I am reading is that you think the term "creation" can only be used as long as it is an "intentional" creation by intelligent design, but not if it is an "accidental" effect. If you do not want to use the word "creation", we can use the word cause and effect. My assumption would then be restated as: Since all natural things had a starting point in time, there exists a PRIOR CAUSE (that obviously must be supernatural since it existed outside the timeline constraining our natural world [making me agree with you that my Assumption 4 is a waste of words haha]) that RESULTED IN THE EFFECT that all natural things began to exist. Therefore, chance or intention has nothing to do with it, but it must be agreed that something had to cause the existence of the universe, since we have agreed that there was a starting point.

The only other possible scenario would be to conclude that the first moment in time (which I specified as The Beginning), was actually the first moment of time, and that nothing existed prior to that. In that case, "nothing" would have to be the cause of "something" which is impossible. Or, if you don't like the word "cause", another way to look at it is that there was "nothing" prior to "something". But the word "prior" would require a moment in time "before" that moment... and without events occurring (mass moving), time does not exist.


I shall let my cast rest on assumption 1, as truly neither of us can prove or disprove whether or not time had a starting point. That is simply beyond human understanding at this point.

However, as we have established that time is linear, in order for a "creator" to exist there must be either a separately running parallel of time that can be observed and interacted out of, or there must be a 'intersection' within this time. This is essentially, as discussed before, a multiverse theory. This, again, is beyond our current understanding and brings back the argument of how many multiverses exist and where other "creators" would even fit into this.

I think what is being lost sight of in your overall argument is what is defined by "creator". You stated that if I did not want to use the word creation, then cause-and-effect could be substituted in its place. This means that what you are now arguing is a completely different standpoint. Cause and effect is the basis of the transition of energy and matter, with or without deliberate interference. A creator is defined as "a person or thing that brings something into existence", synonymous with writers, authors, designers and inventors. The entire debate subject is about whether or not a "supernatural creator" is responsible. Changing your stand point to cause and effect is essentially adhering against your side of the debate. Therefore, it would not have been the result of a creator. The beginning point of time could well be the result of cause and effect, and since the laws of the conservation of matter state that it can neither be created nor destroyed, it had to have been there prior to its "beginning" state. That would be cause and effect, not a creation. The entire idea of a creator implies that there was a thought out design behind the creation. Otherwise it would simply be cause and effect, random chaos.

I will end this round by stating the logical paradox of a creator. If all was created by a supernatural creator, who put all of matter in place and set it in motion, then the question must be asked as to how the creator came about. That in itself is a logical fallacy which can not be explained. Then again, the entire question of how did the beginning begin is a question that can not ultimately be answered today. As you state that nothing can not be the cause of something, then how did the creator, a something, come about in the first place? There is simply no evidence or rationale to back up this claim.
Debate Round No. 3


The judges can decide if I've proved time has a starting point.

Regarding your second paragraph, I entirely agree that there must be a "separate universe", or as I have called it in my Cosmological Claim, a supernatural realm (meaning outside of our natural known universe) where the creator existed/exists.

Now on to the term "creator". As you have mentioned, a creator is defined as "a person or thing that brings something into existence". You proceed by listing that this is synonymous with terms such as writer, author, designer, and inventor. While those are all true, you have only mentioned half the definition (a person who brings something into existence). According to the definition, "a thing" can also be a creator. Therefore, hot and warm air, for example, "brings into existence a tornado." By definition, then, hot and warm air was the "creator" of the tornado. It is important to realize that the definition of creator includes "things" as a potential creator, and therefore does not need the existence of intelligent creation- simply creation. Thus, my argument hasn't changed.

Lastly, you talk about a logical paradox with a creator. This paradox is true under your current assumptions, however you are missing one piece of information. This creator that created the universe is supernatural, and thus by that definition, exists outside of time. Therefore, he/she/it could never be created because that would imply an existence of time prior to. This creator had to just "be", (which I agree is impossible to fully comprehend as a limited human but not too difficult to imagine).


It appears that you have undermined your own argument with your last statement. By stating that the creator had to "just be", you're acknowledging that they had to have been in existence beyond a beginning, which you argue must have happened. How could a creator just be in existence, without the need to be created themselves by a beginning. Essentially, that creator is eternal, yet somehow not confined by a beginning.

Secondly, I must rebutte your definition of creator. You outlined what cause and effect is, but you attach this meaning to that of a creator. In human definition, a creator or something or something that made a creation. What you're doing is attaching a different definition to it than the one that is given to it by human language, in order to give your argument evidence. Creator is more of a personified term. Your example of air and temperature causing weather effects is a natural example, not a supernatural one, as these are identifiable and measurable. We have already debunked what the meaning of supernatural is, rendering this word moot for the purpose of the argument. That only leaves us with the meaning of creator.

Intervention by a being to create a universe outside of their own would be a deliberate action, thereby substantiating my argument that it would be a personified creator rather than a cause-and-effect one that you claim (which is not a 'creator'). This would be unnatural, for one to deliberately affect things in a wy to produce a specific outcome. Supernatural or not is irrelevant.

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that your definition of creator is far too loose. You change the definition to suit your own argument, the parameters of which are not necessarily correct. Changing the definition to suit your argument, again, undermines the integrity of your argument.

Put simply, a creator is a personification of something that chooses to create something. Cause and effect are natural causes. Even if physics conditions within a seperate universe caused the creation of this one, that would be considered natural, not supernatural. You need to clearly define what you mean by creator, as your definitions are not agreed with by the English dictionary.
Debate Round No. 4


"Essentially, that creator is eternal, yet somehow not confined by a beginning." That's exactly what he/she/it was.

The term creator is often used, in many contexts, as a more personified term. However, by definition (just like what we previously agreed upon), it is not. Once again, it is "a person or thing" that creates. (emphasis on 'thing').

When have we debunked the meaning of supernatural? Supernatural, by definition, thus, is: "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." Therefore, it is "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding" OR "attributed to some force beyond the laws of nature. In most common human conversation, the first definition is used. In a scientific sense, the latter is used. Therefore a creator existing outside of time would be supernatural by definition.

In closing, let me restate that (in your own words) "a creator is a personification of something that chooses to create something" is entirely false. Once again, by definition, it is "a person OR thing". Clearly a creator is not necessarily a personification, because personification means attributing to a person; A creator can still be a thing, making it un-personified, and not requiring intelligence. My definition of creation is not too loose, you simply assumed incorrectly.


I will finish my argument with these points:

Supernatural simply means something we don't understand, this does not mean that we will not understand it. Of course something outside of time would be 'supernatural' to us now, as we don't yet understand why that could be possible.

Your idea of a creator appears to have no actual boundaries when you state that it is a person or a thing. If that is the case, then everything that ever will exist had a creator, by your definition, just because something happened to make it. If that is the case, the entire debate is completely pointless and irrelevant, and is the equivalent of stating that the sky is blue.

I now find myself questioning as to what it is you mean by creator and why you think that this question is worth of debate, when you will accept a creator as any person or cause/effect relationship. I no longer understand what this debate is attempting to achieve if the idea of a creator means anyone and anything. Then this is just stating that that something made the universe, which is a pointless thing to state.

I will close by arguing that a supernatural creator, who is not constrained by time, is ultimately stating the obvious if, by your definitions, creator can include anyone and anything at all, and if supernatural means anything we don't yet understand. That is essentially the whole question about the big bang, why did it happen and what caused it. This debate title essentially serves nothing to provide a solution to that.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: AmericanDeist// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Both had good conduct, spelling and grammar. Neither quoted any sources. As a deist, I believe in the Creator to be transcendent, and thus beyond human comprehension, and not bound by space/time. Both had excellent arguments and counters, but I have to go with Pro for conveying a deistic concept.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to assess specific arguments made by both debaters. The voter does not assess either side"s arguments, merely stating what Pro argued and saying that that appealed to him because of his personal biases and experiences. He does not examine Con"s arguments beyond stating that he made excellent points.
Posted by TheMagi 2 years ago
I appreciate it, thanks!
Posted by slightlyirategentleman 2 years ago
I think that your first point is worthy of a debate in itself! A very challenging counter argument I must say.
Posted by TheMagi 2 years ago
Sorry mine took so long. I liked your thought process on yours
Posted by slightlyirategentleman 2 years ago
all done!
Posted by TheMagi 2 years ago
wow are you writing a Thesis!? :D
Posted by TheMagi 2 years ago
Posted by slightlyirategentleman 2 years ago
Thanks for remaking it, lets try do this properly :)
No votes have been placed for this debate.