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: 91,212 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 61 through 70 records.
Posted by Zifsha.2 3 years ago
Zifsha.2
I can't vote. My country name isn't in confirming the identity. But I can say that con you have 5 points and the reliable source is a tied one.
Posted by croweupc 3 years ago
croweupc
@GuitarSinger

I did not mean to attack your position. You are free to believe whatever you want to believe. I have not seen matter created or destroyed, Only changed from one state to another. By the way, There are Theories of Multiverses or an Omniverse. The Big Bang only explains the expansion of the Universe, Not its origins. For as long as I can remember matter has always been here in some state or another.

There are similar things about both positions. Nothing is not something, So nothing is not matter. God is not matter, He is said to have created matter out of nothing. I hold the position that matter can neither be created or destroyed, Only change modifications. Everything we know about reality supports this. Humans come from humans, Dogs from dogs, Trees from trees, Simply modifications of the former generation. I have never seen something come from nothing, And I have never seen something come from something other than itself.
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
GuitarSlinger
@CroweUPC

And yet, Everything we observe in the material universe has a beginning (when it starts to exist) and an end (when it ceases to exist). There it not one thing. . . ONE THING. . . . That you can show has always existed. . . . . . And yet you say say that the universe itself has always existed, , . . . . It'd be one thing if you can point to one or more things that have "always existed", But you can't. . . . . . . . . This flies in the face of everything we observe
Posted by academicwritingsanli 3 years ago
academicwritingsanli
I misunderstood the topic as many have- I though the "God" was supposed to be some sort of being. But I agree with con because God doesn't have to be a person, Or even a being, It can be some sort of force that we can't explain with our limited human knowledge.
Posted by croweupc 3 years ago
croweupc
I think it is funny how so many think the Universe just came into being. It is impossible for nothing to exist. So how could there be nothing before there was something? The most logical position to take is that something has always existed. What you call that something should be what this debate is about. I would argue that the Universe has always existed, And take God (a being outside and apart from space-time) out of the equation. The Universe as a whole is what I call God, So I cannot really agree with this debate. But I don"t think it"s possible for one substance to create another substance different from itself. Everything we know to exist is simply a different modification of the same substance.
Posted by lildood 3 years ago
lildood
the things that we can't define or don't have a proper reasoning behind, We name that as "god's doings". Like hell, Heaven, After life, Reincarnations - you never know if any of that stuff actually exists. I believe god isn't actually needed for anything. We are own gods and goddesses. People say god created earth, Well did he? And did you see it? There's been a thousand theories for everything and i think the ultimate truth is nothing is true.
Posted by ladiesman 3 years ago
ladiesman
For the sake of argument, The universe needs a cause. Nothing can cause itself to pop into existence. The more we learn about the universe through the sciences, The more perfectly calibrated it appears. And we find the cosmos to be more complex than we thought. Design requires a designer.
Posted by katkat517 3 years ago
katkat517
GuitarSlinger, You stated "It is my opinion/belief that matter is not eternal. If matter creates energy, Then what created matter? The claim that "matter" is eternal flies in the face of what we observe all around us. We see things coming in and out of existence all the time (changing as StarPSyche points out)"
It may seem as things are coming in and out of existence, But this is an illusion, Nothing goes out of existence, And nothing is really coming into existence. All seemingly "New" things are made from the matter of previous things, And likewise, All old things that seemingly "die" are really transformed into seemingly "New" things. Nothing is ever really new, But recycled from the old. A baby is created from the matter (sperm and egg) of the parents, And through the mother's womb, Is fed on the matter of the recycled food that she eats. Does the food the mother eats go out of existence? No, It is merely recycled. And it is so for everything that ever was or ever will be in the universe. If you believe that God is the Eternal, Then that Eternal could just as easily be Matter, In fact Matter better fits the bill, As we can see that one thing is always made from the matter of another thing here on earth.
Posted by StardustyPsyche 3 years ago
StardustyPsyche
GuitarSlinger

" If the being is im-material (not made of matter), "
"is im-material" is an incoherent combination of words. To say "is" means you are asserting that a being exists. What is this being made of, Absolutely nothing at all? Then the being does not exist. Is the being made of some heretofore unknown material? Then the being is material.

"im-material (not made of matter), "
Wrong definition. Material includes all that exists. Energy is material. Space is material. If god exists god must be material.

To assert an existent im-material being is incoherent.

"we would be applying "material" attributes to that which is im-material. "
How can im-material have any attributes at all? Attributes of what? Absolutely nothing at all?

To say "that which is im-material" is to make an ad hoc incoherent sentence. It's like saying "I always lie. " It has the grammatical form of a sentence but is simply gibberish.
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
GuitarSlinger
@StardustyPscyhe

But here's the kicker. . . . What you say applies to material beings (having to change). All we can say is what is made of material would change or must change (if it causes the change). If the being is im-material (not made of matter), And it causes the material to change, We can't necessarily say it too must be changing-- we would be applying "material" attributes to that which is im-material.

But logic tells us that that which changes within the material universe, Needs a cause for the change-- a cause that is outside of it. . The universe (made of material) is changing, So logic tells us that what caused the material universe to change must be outside of the material universe, I. E. Not bound by space or time. If it's not bound by time, That means it's eternal. So the cause of the changing material universe is itself a Cause that is Eternal.

**How could god possibly impart a change without itself changing? The assertion is incoherent, Merely disconnected words strung together with the grammatical form of a sentence**

This question is asked because the person asking the question is projecting onto god (God) attributes of material beings. They are assuming that the cause of the material universe has the same attributes of a material being. This is not a logical assumption.
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.