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


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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,297 times Debate No: 23750
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




how could the universe come into existence without an intelligent creator


Since my opponent hasn't given a specific resolution, I move that the resolution be "The universe requires a creator"

My opponent will be arguing Pro, that the universe requires a creator and there is no possible way for the universe to have come into existence without one.

I will argue Con, that the universe does not require a creator, and I will do my best to demonstrate that it is possible for the universe to have come into existence without a creator.

I will let my opponent post his argument before I post mine.
Debate Round No. 1


"No question is more sublime than why there is a universe: why there is anything rather than nothing."[1]

"Or were they created by nothing? Or were they the creators (of themselves)? Or did they create heavens and earth? Rather, they are not certain." Quran 52:35-36

Before we proceed, the first presupposition has to be subtantiated, as it forms the basis for the Qur'an's argument for the existence of God. This first assumption is that the universe began to exist. If the universe did begin to exist it logically follows that there had to be a cause because if there wasn't you would be saying that universe came out of nothing, but we know out of nothing, nothing comes.

Did the universe begin to exist?

To substantiate the view that the universe began to exist we can bring into our discussion a plethora of philosophical and inductive arguments:

1. The second law of thermodynamics
2. The absurdity of an infinite history of past events
3. Astrophysical evidence

1. The second law of thermodynamics

The concept of entropy was introduced to explain the direction of various processes that occur in the natural world. Entropy is a measure of how evenly energy is distributed in a system. For example, heat always flows from a body of a higher temperature or energy (low entropy) to one of a lower temperature or energy (high entropy). Take the following illustration of a container with gas,

when the partition is removed, the gas in one end of the container will spread to the whole of the container, going from a state of low entropy (higher temperature or energy) to high entropy (lower temperature or energy).

Hence, according to the second law of thermodynamics, processes in a closed system tend towards higher entropy, as their energy is being used.

Applying the second law of thermodynamics to the universe we will conclude that it must have began to exist. Since the universe is a closed system, with enough time the universe will suffer a heat death or thermodynamic equilibrium. When systems are in thermodynamic equilibrium, they cannot transfer energy. This is because entropy can only increase over time. Therefore, as the universe continues to expand it will eventually become cold and dead. However this raises a question, if the universe never began to exist it would imply that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time. If this is true then why isn't the universe already in a state of heat death? This strongly suggests that the universe must have had a beginning, because if it didn't it would imply that it has existed for an infinite amount of time, which would mean that it should already have suffered a heat death. Since it hasn't suffered a heat death, it strongly indicates that the universe is finite, meaning it began to exist.

2. The absurdity of an infinite history of past events

Some philosophers such as Bertrand Russell argued that the universe is eternal, meaning it has no beginning and it will never end. However if we think about this we will conclude that this position is irrational. If the universe never had a beginning it means there must be an infinite history of past events. Yet does an actual infinite exist in the real world? Is it possible?

The concept of the actual infinite cannot be exported into the real world, because it leads to contradictions and doesn't make sense. Let's take the following examples to illustrate this point:

1. Say you have an infinite number of balls, if I take 2 balls away, how many do you have left? Infinity. Does that make sense? Well, there should be two less than infinity, and if there is, then we should be able to count how many balls you have. But this is impossible, because the infinite is just an idea and doesn't exist in the real world. In light of this fact the famous German mathematician David Hilbert said,

"The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought…the role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea."[2]

2. Imagine you are a soldier ready to fire a gun, but before you shoot you have to ask permission for the soldier behind you, but he has to do the same, and it goes on for infinity. Will you ever shoot? No you wouldn't. This highlights, the absurdity of an infinite regress and this applies to events to. Therefore, there cannot be an infinite history of past events.

3. Take the distance between two points, one may argue that you can subdivide the distance into infinite parts, but you will always be subdividing and never actually reach the ‘infinitieth' part! So in reality the infinite is potential and can never be actualised. Similarly the ancient Greek Philosopher Aristotle explained,

"…the infinite is potential, never actual: the number of parts that can be taken always surpasses any assigned number."[3]

So if we refer back to an infinite history of past events we can conclude, since events are not just ideas they are real, the number of past events cannot be infinite. Therefore the universe must be finite, in other words the cosmos had a beginning.

3. Astrophysical evidence

The ‘Big Bang' is the prevailing theory in cosmology. It was first formulated by the aid of some observations made by an American Astronomer called Edwin Hubble. While Hubble was trying to understand the size of the universe, he observed immensely luminous stars called Cepheid Variables and noticed something peculiar. He observed that some of these stars were further away than initially anticipated, and that their colour was slightly changed, shifting towards red, something now known as red-shift. From Hubble's observations we were able conclude that everything seems to be moving away from each other, in other words the universe is effectively expanding. As time moves on the universe continues to expand, but if time is reversed, the theory is that everything starts to coalesce and come together. Coupled with the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation, which is the radiation uniformly filling the observable universe, the idea of the ‘Big Bang' was born. In other words the universe began at a cataclysmic event which created space-time and all matter in the universe. The physicist P. C. W. Davies explains,

"If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself."[4]

Thus the ‘Big Bang' model describes our universe as having a beginning a finite time ago. As Alex Vilenkin, one of the world's leading theoretical cosmologists, writes,

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."[6]

Other models have been proposed to try and explain away the obvious metaphysical questions that arise from a finite universe, for instance P.C.W. Davies questions,

"What caused the big bang? . . . One might consider some supernatural force, some agency beyond space and time as being responsible for the big bang, or one might prefer to regard the big bang as an event without a cause. It seems to me that we don't have too much choice. Either…something outside of the physical world…or…an event without a cause."[7]


Resolved: The universe requires a creator

I will attempt to negate this resolution. Here is my opening argument:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The resolution has been negated.


4. The YouTube video above


Please note that I have already done a debate with this resolution ( I have copied and pasted my opening argument from that debate to this one. This isn't plagiarised (like my opponent's argument, but we'll get to that in the next round) because I am the original writer of this argument. I am allowed to use it in multiple debates if I choose.

Debate Round No. 2


Once I have presented good evidence that the universe began to exist. We can now address the logically possible explanations the Qur'an presents as rationalisations of the origins of the universe .

"Or were they created by nothing? Or were they the creators (of themselves)? Or did they create heavens and earth? Rather, they are not certain." Quran 52:35-36

This means that things that began to exist were either:-

1. Created or brought into being from nothing
2. Self caused or self created
3. Created or brought into being by something else that began to exist
4. Created or brought into being by a non-created or un-caused entity

Created or brought into being from nothing

We know the universe couldn't have come out of nothing, because out of nothing, nothing comes! This is an undeniable philosophical principle, as P. J. Zwart in his publication About Time explains,

"If there is anything we find inconceivable it is that something could arise from nothing."[8]

A significant point to raise here is that nothingness should not be misconstrued as the nothingness that some physicists talk about. The term nothingness in this context refers to the absence of anything physical, in other words there is no pre-existing ‘stuff'. In light of the beginning of the universe, there was absolutely nothing before it began to exist, which is why physicists have explained the universe as having a space-time boundary.

However, nothingness as defined by some physicists relates to the quantum vacuum. This is misleading because the quantum is something. In quantum theory the vacuum is a field of energy pervading the whole of the universe. In the word's of John Polkinghorne, a philosopher of science, the quantum vacuum,

"…is not ‘nothing'; it is a structured and highly active entity."[9]

So, in context of some of the physicists' definition, the universe could not have come from absolutely nothing, as the quantum vacuum is something. It is a sea of fluctuating energy, which is still part of the cosmos and it did not pre-exist the universe. This point leads us nicely to the next possible explanation.

Self caused or self created

Philosophically, the universe couldn't have created itself because that would imply a paradox. It would mean that something can exist and not exist at the same time. The logical ends of this explanation are tantamount to saying that your mother gave birth to herself!

Recently, the world renowned physicist, Stephen Hawking in his new book The Grand Design argues that the universe did self create due to the law of gravity,

"Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing…"[10]

But his view on nothing, as previously mentioned, is not really nothingness but is space filled with the quantum vacuum, which is part of the universe. In essence Hawking is telling us that the universe can create itself, but it has to already exist for it to do that!

Concerning the law of gravity, well that is just a mathematical equation that describes nature. This law is part of the universe, which can also be described as a force of attraction between material objects. Therefore, how can this force exist before matter, in other words the universe?

To assert that the universe created itself would be absurd and self refuting, because in order for something to create itself it would need to exist before it existed!

Created or brought into being by something else that began to exist

This is not an adequate explanation for the origins of the universe. The universe could not have owed its existence to another state of temporal physical existence. To maintain such an explanation would be equivalent of expanding the boundaries of the universe, as all things which have a temporal beginning exist within the universe. Also, if temporal physical existence owes itself to another temporal physical existence ad infinitum, it doesn't explain anything. Rather it highlights the absurdity of an infinite regress, and that there has to be a beginning to the temporal physical states, which logically must be a non-physical state.

Take the following example into consideration. If the universe, U1, followed another temporal cause U2, and U2 followed another temporal cause U3, and this went on ad infinitum we wouldn't have the universe U1 in the first place. Think about it this way, when does U1 come into being? Only after U2 has come into being. When does U2 come into being? Only after U3 has come into being. This same problem will continue even if we go to infinity. If U1 depended on its coming into being on a chain of infinite temporal causes, U1 would never exist.
Created or brought into being by a non-created or un-caused entity

Since something cannot come from nothing, and self creation is absurd, including the unreasonableness of the aforementioned explanation, then the universe being created or brought into existence by an uncaused entity is the best explanation. This concept is intuitive but also agrees with reality: whatever begins to exist has a cause or a creator.

This cause or creator must be uncaused due to the absurdity of an infinite regress, in other words an indefinite chain of causes. To illustrate this better, if the cause of the universe had a cause and that cause had a cause ad infinitum, then there wouldn't be a universe to talk about in the first place (something we have already discussed above). For example, imagine if a Stock Trader on a trading floor at the Stock Exchange was not able to buy or sell his stocks or bonds before asking permission from the investor, and then this investor had to check with his, and this went on forever, would the Stock Trader every buy or sell his stocks or bonds? The answer is no. In similar light if we apply this to the universe we would have to posit an uncaused cause due to this rational necessity. The Qur'an confirms the uncreatedness of the creator, God,

"He neither begets nor is born." Qur'an 112:3

The cause or creator for the universe must be a single cause for several reasons. An attractive argument to substantiate this claim includes the use of the rational principle called Occam's razor. In philosophical terms the principle enjoins that we do not multiply entities beyond necessity. What this basically means is that we should stick to explanations that do not create more questions than it answers. In the context of the cause for the universe we have no evidence to claim multiplicity, in other words more than one. The Qur'an affirms the Oneness of the creator,

"Say: He is God, [who is] One." Qur'an 112:1

Our argument thus far allows us to conclude that this cause or creator must be non contingent meaning that its existence is dependent on nothing but itself. If it were contingent it would be one more effect in the chain of causes. The Qur'an verifies this,

"God is Independent of (all) creatures." Qur'an 3:97

The cause or creator must also be transcendent, this means that the cause of the universe must exist outside of and apart from the universe. Since this being exists apart from the universe it must be non-physical or immaterial, if it was material then it would be part of the universe. This is confirmed in the Qur'an,

"There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing" Qur'an 42:11

This cause must have the power to create the universe, without this ability nothing could be created. The Qur'an testifies to God's power,

"Certainly, God has power over all things." Qur'an 2:20

This cause must have a will, because it wouldn't be able to create the universe without one. What this means is that it must have a will so the power to create could be acted on. The Qur'an refers to God as having a will in many places, for instance,

"And God guides whom He wills to a straight path." Qur'an 2:213


Looking over my opponent's arguments as a whole, there are a few main reasons why they should be rejected altogether.

1. These arguments are PLAGIARIZED. My opponent has directly copied and pasted everything he said from another website. You can find the original arguments made here: They are also made on many other sites. This demonstrates that my opponent is incapable of making a single unique argument by himself. I challenge my opponent to actually create his own argument in the next round instead of just copying and pasting it from another website. Needless to say, the conduct point for this debate should go to Con.

2. These arguments do not pertain to the resolution. The resolution is not "God exists". As I said in my first constructive, neither side is trying to affirm or negate the existence of a God. Rather, my opponent is burdened to prove that the universe could not have come into existence in any other way besides being created by a supernatural entity. The arguments that he is using is trying to affirm that this entity exists in the first place, which is not what we are trying to debate about. I will explain this later when I refute each argument that my opponent plagiarized.

3. There are no citations for his arguments. When copying his argument from another website exactly, my opponent forgot to include the citations for this argument. Every argument my opponent has made with a citation number must automatically be disregarded because there is no way to tell if this argument is true based on a lack of actual citations. This is also further evidence that my opponent plagiarized his arguments.

I will now attempt to specifically refute each argument my opponent has copied.

My Opponent's First Constructive

My opponent's first constructive can be summed up as follows: "The universe began to exist".

I agree.

My Opponent's Second Constructive

In this constructive, my opponent (or rather, the website my opponent plagiarized from) addresses four different possibilities for how the universe came to exist.

1) Created or brought into being from nothing

This is the option that I will be defending as it has everything to do with my first constructive.

The first thing my opponent does is claim (without citations), that it is inconceivable that the universe could have come from nothing. He offers no reason why, and doesn't bother to give anyone an explanation to lead to his conclusion, he just states his conclusion and moves on. Sorry, that isn't very convincing. If my opponent's first objection to my argument is "it's inconceivable", then we need only to look at my first constructive to refute that.

The next thing my opponent does is claim that since a quantum vacuum is actually something rather than nothing, so that cannot be used as an explanation for the origins of the universe. By saying this, my opponent has acknowledged that it is possible for the universe to come into existence via quantum vacuum. Because of this, all I need to do is prove that the quantum vacuum qualifies as "nothing" to win this debate.

So what is a quantum vacuum? The definition that the website my opponent plagiarized gave is completely wrong. A quantum vacuum is not a field of energy, it is an environment that allows different electromagnetic waves and particles to pop in and out of existence [1]. Its default state is that of non-existence, or rather, quantum fluctuations that occur in this vacuum happen so quickly that it is almost impossible to tell that the energy was even there in the first place. This is exactly why a quantum vacuum can be defined as nothing - because 99.9% of the time, there is a complete absence of energy, and when there is energy present, it is zero total energy regardless.

Given this, it is scientifically possible for the universe to have come into existence from nothing.

2) Self caused or self created

I am not arguing for this, so I will let this drop.

3) Created or brought into being by something else that began to exist

Same as #2

4) Created or brought into being by a non-created or un-caused entity

This is the conclusion that my opponent wishes to defend. Please note that my opponent came to this conclusion through an argument from ignorance. He is simply asserting that this position is true because he cannot think of another better explanation. In other words, the options 1-3 that he gave were wrong, so #4 must be right by default. This is not an argument. Not only that, but since I have proven that his first option is both possible and plausible, the logical fallacy he used to come to this conclusion isn't even correct.

Another problem with this conclusion is that my opponent gives ZERO evidence to support it. He cites the Qur'an multiple times, which is just about as good of evidence as me citing a cook book for my conclusion. Citing certain scriptures in the Qur'an DOES NOT prove that the universe requires a creator, it just proves that my opponent BELIEVES it does. That isn't an argument, so this conclusion fails.

My opponent's plagiarized arguments have been refuted.

I'd like to point out that besides for the argument my opponent copied that touched upon the universe being created from nothing, my opponent has yet to refute any of my arguments. My first constructive has proven that it is scientifically possible for the universe to have been created from nothing, meaning that the universe does not require a creator.

The resolution has been negated.


Debate Round No. 3


In the first round I not only said that that I am going to argue that the universe we have today which permits life needs a creator but also that this creator has a supreme intelligence.

And I will try to substantiate this through the fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe. Let me start off by presenting the premises of this argument:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe to permit life is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

Explaining Premise One

The existence of a universe that permits human life is due to conditions that must have been fined-tuned to a degree that is beyond comprehension. Take the following examples into consideration:

• The Strength of Gravity & the Atomic Weak Force: Physicist P. C. W. Davies concludes that a small change in the strength of gravity or of the atomic weak force would have prevented a universe that permits our existence. P. C. W. Davies argues that this small change is as small as one part in 10100 .

• Volume of the phase space of possible universes: Roger Penrose of Oxford University explains that the creator would have to aim for a very tiny volume of the "phase space of possible universes" to create a universe that resembles our own. This is quite technical science, but we should ask the question: how tiny is this volume? According to Penrose the volume would be 1/10 to the power of X which is 10123. The precision required to produce a universe that resembles our own is much greater than the precision that would be required to hit one proton if the universe were a dartboard!

In light of the above, there are only three possible explanations for the presence of the above fine tuning of the universe:

1. Physical necessity;
2. Chance;
3. Design.

Why it cannot be Physical Necessity

This option is irrational. There is just no physical reason why these constants and quantities should have the values they do. As P. C. W. Davies explains:

"Even if the laws of physics were unique, it doesn't follow that the physical universe itself is unique…the laws of physics must be augmented by cosmic initial conditions…there is nothing in present ideas about ‘laws of initial conditions' remotely to suggest that their consistency with the laws of physics would imply uniqueness. Far from it…it seems, then, that the physical universe does not have to be the way it is: it could have been otherwise."

Additionally if anyone was to take the view that the fine-tuning of the universe to permit human life is due to physical necessity, it would imply that it would be impossible to have a universe not fit for life! However physicists maintain that the universe in which we live didn't have to be the way that it is, and there could have been many other universes that did not permit human life.

Why it cannot be Chance

Some people who do not understand the impossibility of the universe coming into being by chance exclaim, "It could have happened by chance!" However would they say chance explains how an elephant was sleeping in their garage overnight? Or how a 747 ended up parked in their garden? Even after their irrational perspective is highlighted, they still hold on to the theory that the universe can exist due to chance. In response to this I would argue that it is not just about chance but something the theorists such as William Dembski call "specified probability."

Specified probability is a probability that also conforms to an independent pattern. To illustrate this, imagine you have a monkey in a room for twenty-four hours, typing a way on your laptop. In the morning you enter the room and you see, "To be or not to be!" The monkey has miraculously written out a part of a Shakespearian play! What you may have expected is random words such as "house," "car," and "apple." However, in this case not only have you seen the improbability of typing English words – but they also conform to the independent pattern of English grammar! To accept this is just the result of blind chance would be irrational and counter discourse, as anyone can claim anything from this perspective. To put this in to context, British mathematicians have calculated that if a monkey did type on a laptop at every possible moment, it would take 28 Billion years (!!!) to produce "To be or not to be". In conclusion, accepting the chance hypothesis is tantamount to rejecting the existence of our own universe!

Since premises one and two are true, it follows that supernatural design is the most reasonable explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe to permit human life.


At this point it's become abundantly clear that IF my opponent was capable of giving his own argument about this resolution, he has absolutely no interest in doing so. All I am debating against is my opponent's ability to copy and paste from other websites. The last round that my opponent plagiarized is from

My opponent's last round can be summed up as follows: "The universe is fine-tuned for life, thus God exists". Hamza Tzortzis (the author of the actual argument my opponent copied), does an adequate job of explaining the second part of the argument, but not the first. In fact, Tzortzis doesn't show at all how the universe is finely tuned. He simply assumes that it is, and that people would agree with him. He provides no evidence to support the conclusion that the universe is designed, or finely-tuned, and thus, the first premise in his argument is false.

How could anyone think that the universe was finely-tuned for life? There is presently one known area of the universe that is actually capable of sustaining life, and that's Earth. This makes up less than one trillionth of the universe that will not instantly kill life. The vast majority of the universe will kill all life instantly, due to extreme heat, extreme cold, or extreme exposure to radiation[1]. The universe is so large that it's impossible to even imagine, and humans can't live naturally in pretty much any of it. Does this sound like a "fine-tuned universe" that can support human life?

So humans are capable of living in less than a trillionth of the universe, and this "Goldilocks Zone" isn't all that great either. For example, the Andromeda galaxy is predicted to collide with ours sometime in the next 3 to 5 billion years [2]. This will effectively end all life on Earth, that is, if the Sun hasn't already gotten to the point where it will be too hot to sustain terrestrial life in the first place [3]. Of course, this is all assuming that the Milky Way's galaxy orbit doesn't collide into a supernova that will kill all life before any of this happens at all [1].

How exactly does this represent a finely-tuned universe? It can barely sustain life, and it can't even do so for a long period of time. If the universe really was created by an omnipotent and omniscient creator like my the website my opponent plagiarized from would have you believe, then why is the design of the universe so stupid? There is no conceivable way that the universe is finely-tuned for life, and my opponent is forced to defend this in order for his argument to stand.

The second part of my opponent's argument is just as flawed as the first. My opponent claims that God is the only way this finely tuned universe could have come into existence. My opponent is committing the same argument from ignorance fallacy as he did before. He says that "It wasn't done by chance of physical necessity, and I can't think of a better explanation, so God must have done it". That is not an argument. That is an assumption based off scientific ignorance, and doesn't qualify as evidence in the least bit. Let's also not forget that my opponent included a total of ZERO citations to back up any of the claims that he made, giving yet another reason to dismiss his argument as a whole.

To conclude, there are four main reasons why I urge a Con vote in this debate:

1) My opponent is incapable of coming up with a single coherent argument on his own; he has resorted to plagiarism for each and every single one of the arguments that he has made.
2) My opponent provides zero citations to support any claim that he makes throughout this debate.
3) Half of the arguments that my opponent plagiarized do not even pertain to the resolution.
4) My first constructive, which gives a specific example of how the universe could have formed from nothing, has gone unrefuted throughout this entire debate.

Given all of these reasons, I urge a Con vote.

I would also like to challenge the Pro for a second time to stop plagiarizing, at least for the final round.


1. The Youtube video above
Debate Round No. 4


AskMeAboutIslam forfeited this round.


To sum this debate up, Pro plagiarized his arguments and forfieted his last round. On the other hand, I have given an argument on how the universe could have come into existence without a creator, and this has gone unrefuted throughout the entire debate. I have refuted each point that my opponent has made, although half of it wasn't even relevent to the debate.

So please extend my arguments and vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Mrparkers 6 years ago
I need to start forcing people that I debate with to accept a precondition: "Plagiarism results in an automatic forfeit". This is just ridiculous.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Meatros 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and Sources go to Con, due to plagiarism. Pro's arguments seemed to be unrelated to what was being argued as Con pointed out. Con points out that Pro is largely resting on an appeal to ignorance. Arguments go to Con.