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

The universe was created by a God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 3/23/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 763 times Debate No: 101281
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




I am here to disprove atheism. They say science can explain how the world was created, and maybe it can. It can't explain other things like how we have physics, or even 3D space.

The only way you can be atheist an logically believe this is if you believe we live in a computer simulation. However, a computer simulation has to be processed by an actual computer. Which must exist in A. Another computer simulation or B. a reality.

All conclusions come down to a root universe that it all has to come from, which brings us back to the first problem: how do we have things like scientific laws, 3D space, or even time?

The only way this could is with a God.


I accept the terms of your debate.

I will be arguing that "The universe was created by God" is not a logically obtainable conclusion.

For purposes of the debate, I request that you provide a short definition for God in your next response.
Debate Round No. 1


Good luck with that, as its actually the only logical conclusion you can get when you get right down to it.

Although this will be a debate for wether or not theres a god at all, rather than WHICH god is the real god, when I say God I will be referring to the abrahamic god of the jews, muslims and christians.


1) Burden of Proof

I would like to point out that as My Opponent's premise makes more assumptions than mine, the burden of proof lies squarely on him{1}. He postulates that "God created the universe" whereas I only claim "The universe began to exist". Clearly we both agree to the premise that the universe does exist, but he takes it a step further in claiming that God created it. Therefore, in order to win this debate, he must exhibit the following:

A) God exists
B) God created the universe

To satisfy the requirements of point B, he must explain how God created the universe and why God created the universe. I posit that it is impossible for My Opponent to do so; he has indicated Yah'Weh, the God of the Hebrews, to be the progenitor he speaks of in his argument. Consequently, he must understand Yah'Weh to elucidate why or how Yah'Weh would do something, and according to Yah'Weh's own words, he and his limits are unknowable{2},{3}. There are two possible conclusions to draw from this:

1) Yah'Weh's is unknowable, and therefore it can not possibly be demonstrated that he exists or created the universe
2) Yah'Weh is fallible and therefore not a God,
{4},{5} therefore if Yah'Weh created the universe the universe would not have been created by a God.

2) Refutation

Sadly, the light argument made by Pro is tenuously grounded, to put it mildly, it amounts to this:

Everything comes from something
scientific laws, 3D space, and time exist
God exists

Furthermore, Pro asserts that "God exists" is the only possible conclusion from these premises. However this declaration is easily demonstrated to be spurious:

Everything comes from something
scientific laws, 3D space, and time exist
Dogs exists

This is the same reasoning used by My Opponent, and my conclusion is as valid as his. It should be readily apparent that this logic is deeply flawed, ergo Pro has not validated either point A or B, and the burden of proof stills rest on him.

Debate Round No. 2


God is unknowable in the sense that we can't begin to comprehend the things he does. He says he creates the universe, so thats him telling us. Not us guessing. For example, we have no idea why god said meals had to be prepared a certain way or this or that, because his ways are far beyond our comprehension.

You said god had limits... the verse you sent changes translation to translation. Basically most of them agree that what he meant by that was "can you begin to understand gods ways" so no, he has no limits. If you mean in the sense "god can't sin, therefore is limited" no, he's not. Can god make a rock bigger than he can lift? No, he can't. "But that still means he has limits" you might be saying, no it doesn't. It means we can't comprehend omnipotence. It doesn't make sense to us, but to an all powerful god it makes perfect sense.

I don't think I understand that last part... what you're saying is that by me saying 'things exist god must have made them' is the same as you saying 'things exist dogs must have made them'. Well... no its not. Last I checked dogs aren't omnipotent.


Pro has conceded that he can not comprehend God's ways with the following statements: "God is unknowable in the sense that we can't begin to comprehend the things he does" and "his ways are far beyond our comprehension". This explicitly illustrates that he can not measure, detect, quantify, categorize, or otherwise typify the causes or effects of God's actions.

As stated before, the burden of proof lies on Pro's assertion that God created the universe. Because he has admitted that he can not parse, nay, even imagine God's methods, he can not possibly demonstrate logically that God created the universe.

P(Pro) needs GW(God's Ways) to prove C(Conclusion)
GW can not be known
P can not prove C

I have won the debate.
Debate Round No. 3


Except that hes an all powerful god, who existed before anything else did. Its doesnt seem logical because it doesn't need to be! The creator of the scientific laws doesn't have to comply with them if he doesn't want to.

Either way, through the big bang, or by god, matter still had to come out of nothing. If anything, its more logical that God created the universe than matter created itself.


"(God created the universe is) the only logical conclusion" is directly contradicted by "Its doesnt seem logical because it doesn't need to be".

Pro has admitted that his argument does not use logic and reaffirmed the defeat of his own premise.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by MakeDebatingGreatAgain 3 years ago
Pro didn't argue their points very well, and Con gave no arguments, except refuting the logic in pro's claims. However, con didn't need to, as pro didn't have a strong argument in the first place. I definitely agree with con, and will vote for them when I gain voting status on this site.
Posted by Vapid_Darkness 3 years ago
We need more proof to debate other than just your opinions.
Posted by Youngastronomer 3 years ago
Interesting debate.
Posted by What50 3 years ago
If god created the earth than why is he letting chimps be mistreated.
Posted by Iacov 3 years ago
What if you believe in multiple gods?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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