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+73
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: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 91,211 times Debate No: 118944
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (177)
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
177 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 101 through 110 records.
Posted by Anonymous03 3 years ago
Anonymous03
@omar2345
Good point. Every idea about the universe's creation is just a theory. I just wanted to add that the Creation theory is more of a crackpot idea because of a few things, Like proof that the Earth is more than 4000 years old, That the Creation story conveniently skips over facets of Earth's history like dinosaurs, Or that the religion which accompanies the theory is pretty flawed as well.

The fact that there is evidence supporting the Big Bang is a plus too. Real, Tangible evidence that isn't the word of some bored Jews a few millennia ago.

Just another thing I wanted to add on this clearly popular comment thread: I just hate that debate. Org autocorrects word after commas to capital letters. It just looks weird and is punctually incorrect too. Anyone else agree?
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@IsaiahWOod23

"The argument is illogical"
God is illogical.

"Was there never a beginning of the universe"
Why can't the start of the universe be the Big Bang? Does it require purpose or do you think everything requires purpose to do anything?

"but it is actually very simple"
Do we know how the universe started? No. So every idea about the start of the universe is a theory until it is proven to be true which is a big ask to do.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@IsaiahWOod23

"The argument is illogical"
God is illogical.

"Was there never a beginning of the universe"
Why can't the start of the universe be the Big Bang? Does it require purpose or do you think everything requires purpose to do anything?

"but it is actually very simple"
Do we know how the universe started? No. So every idea about the start of the universe is a theory until it is proven to be true which is a big ask to do.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@GuitarSlinger

The universe can be created without a God therefore that is also a theory on how the universe can be created. Is it too difficult to understand that the universe started with a big bang? Not everything requires purpose only understanding. The weather has no purpose only requires understanding since it is not proven to be sentient.

"it needed something to light it's fuse"
It does not need it. What created evolution? God or not the creator. Another example of something that does not require someone to work is The Earth rotating around the sun. The way I see it you must associate everything with God so why are you sticking to the Big Bang. I am sure you believe God created everything so why don't you just say this: The Big Bang and everything else is a product of God?
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
GuitarSlinger
People like to say the "Big Bang" created it. The Big Bang doesn't preclude a Creator though. Just like a firecracker can't set itself off-- it needed something (someone) to light the fuse-- likewise, The Big Bang couldn't set itself off-- it needed something to light it's fuse, So to speak.
Posted by IsaiahWOod23 3 years ago
IsaiahWOod23
The argument is illogical, Was there never a beginning of the universe, Who created it, Itself?
People could have a whole debate over that question but it is actually very simple, God or. . . . .
Posted by billsands 3 years ago
billsands
We just don't know do we?
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@GuitarSlinger

Completely forgot you replied back. I'll end the discussion here if you want to continue. Send me a message or create a debate.
Posted by BossChick_23 3 years ago
BossChick_23
Hi Pro. Waiting for u to reply back with my debate
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
GuitarSlinger
my 3rd paragraph - I was making a point, Using my running example, That the length of time to write a book (or run 3 miles) is a set length of time. If you think it's too long of a length of time to write a book, Fine-- but it's only that. . . Your opinion. Why must God write a book in a short length of time-- simply because you say that's how it must be? Sorry, That's not a good enough reason.

As far as the Bible being written in a few days, Well. . . Let's see. . . . Scholars tend to agree that the oldest book in the Bible is the Book of Job, Written somewhere between the 7th and 4th centuries BCE. So, For the sake of argument, Let's just put the oldest date, 7th century as the date.

Scholars also agree that the New Testament books were written sometime in the 2nd half of the 1st centure CE. But, Again, For the sake of argument, Let's use 200 CE as the date. . . . . .

So if take the oldest book (written 7 century BCE) through the most recent book (200 CE), We have about 1000 years span between when the oldest book was written and the most recent book written (i'm rounding up :-) )

Now let's see what the Bible says about all this. Well, If you go to 2 Peter 3:8, You'll find this:

"But do not ignore this one fact, Beloved, That with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day. "

So if a thousand years is like 1 day, And the Bible was written in a span of 1000 years, Then one can say that that Bible was written in 1 day (no disrespect to Tolkien).
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Anonymous 3 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 3 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 3 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 3 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 3 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 3 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 3 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.