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: 91,203 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 31 through 40 records.
Posted by DeletedUser 2 years ago
DeletedUser
my ideas on it. 1. The universe came from nothingness and a giant explosion. 2. The universe has always existed in its present form except with some variation. Like what created the universe or what would of created god if things needed a creator. And 3. The universe could of created itself from something else.
Posted by croweupc 2 years ago
croweupc
@ t. Le

I was Christian for over 30 years. I am aware of what the Bible says. It tells you God created the heaven and earth. That is a claim without an explanation. This happens throughout the Bible. Just because there is a book that tells you God did it, Doesn't mean it's true. Why believe the Bible over other holy books with equally plausible claims? It isn't surprising to me that they knew there is time and space. I am not sure why that would be relevant.

:But remember he is not limited by anything as he created it. Without time, There is no beginning. Without matter there is nothing. So, God does not need a creator, And there was no "beginning beginning"

By this logic, God, Not being matter, Would be nothing.

I don't believe the Big Bang Theory has been disproven unless it were a religious concept where every part hinges on each other or it all falls apart. In science, They make a hypothesis, Then set out to disprove it. If it turns out to be wrong, They will modify their hypothesis, Or theory. Just because one part of the Big Bang Theory turns out to be wrong doesn't mean we through out the whole theory. It is a theory developed to explain the expanding Universe. It does that quite well. It doesn't however explain Abiogenesis. God and the Big Bang Theory are mutually exclusive.

There are other models to explain where are observable Universe came from, One is the Multiverse. It is not absolute, It is just a hypothesis, But it's an option. The problem I have with religious claims is they make absolute claims, With absolute certainty, With no evidence, That their very specific God did it. How could you possibly know that? I don't care if you say, I think there is a higher power. I respect that position. But how do you get from, There is a higher power to my very specific God did it? What makes your God any more real than other gods around the world?

We have never observed something coming from something other than itself. Can God do that? How?
Posted by t.le 2 years ago
t.le
@croweupc

to make this softer, Im just going to say that assume first that this is just an assumption and then reason it later
Posted by t.le 2 years ago
t.le
@croweupc

(pardon my grammar im just lazy)

in cultures/religions that suggest the existence of God and that God created a universe, I admit that i do not know about it in abundance

but i can explain from a Christian point of view.

in Genesis, The first sentence is "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"
then there is only one heaven, That doesn't matter, But beginning means TIME, And God created time. God CREATED heaven and earth, Which is MATTER and SPACE. So with these 3 fundamental parts that are are dependant on each other, Needless to say, We exist. So, To say that God is infinite is crazy, But remember he is not limited by anything as he created it. Without time, There is no beginning. Without matter there is nothing. So, God does not need a creator, And there was no "beginning beginning"

the big bang theory has been disproven, And i think the theory is totally bs, But thats a topic for another debate

it is not hypocritical if you think about it. Look around you. How can a dot smaller than a page create something so complex like a cell? And where did that matter come from if the universe is limited by laws of physics, Thermodynamics, Etc. So where did all that matter that made the big bang happen come from? If there was no big bang, Then the universe has to be formed another way! And there is a simple yet complex answer to it, God!

if you want me to further detail my explanation, Feel free to rebut. I am open to discussion, But keep in mind i don't really check my gmail so you might have to wait a bit for a response. Right now im lazy and i don't want to keep on going

if this helped in any way, I'll be happy
Posted by croweupc 2 years ago
croweupc
@Haytham

I think it"s hypocritical to create (make up) rules about the Universe we live in and then exempt your God from such rules. How do you know a Universe creator exists? And why do you feel he should get a free pass from requiring a creator when the Universe doesn"t?
Posted by robouryman 2 years ago
robouryman
God didn't create the universe, Chuck Norris round house kicked him in the nads and created the big bang.
Posted by DeletedUser 2 years ago
DeletedUser
"Why would the Universe require a God creator if God does not? "

the law that you are your answer on is that every existing thing needs a creator, But this is only within our universe, Bu Our Creator is not bounded by any of our rules or laws, Because He is not [inside] our universe, He is not limited by its laws, By definition He is Untreated, And He doesn't submit to any law [inside] this universe, And He is only One and only, And non is comparable to Him.

This Creator already contacted us, And he is showing us his proofs in Quran, The greatest discovery of this century according to hawkins is Expanding Universe, This piece of information already mentioned in Quran 14 centuries ago,

Quran 51:47 We built the UNIVERSE with strength, And We are EXPANDING it.

Science: the UNIVERSE Is EXPANDING.
Posted by croweupc 2 years ago
croweupc
@Haytham
"by saying God isn't needed for the existence of the universe is exactly as illogical as saying Ferrari factory isn't needed for the existence of Ferrari cars around the world, "

What about the existence of God?

Is there a God factory?

Why would the Universe require a God creator if God does not?
Posted by SWATSniper 2 years ago
SWATSniper
I am atheist.
Posted by anc2006 2 years ago
anc2006
i agree with con
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.