CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
God is a being that is the creator of everything. This applies to trees, rocks, asteroids, Planet Earth... well... I'll probably be here for a long time should I continue. Anyway, the point worth mentioning is that all of these creations abide by the laws of science, such as time, matter and space. So, the next point to mention is the rule of energy; it can neither be created nor destroyed. This rule abides within the laws of science, therefore, energy cannot be created or destroyed by anything which also abides by these laws. Note: Time is finite, Matter is finite, and Space is finite.
Now that we have set up the big question of what created everything if everything could not have created itself or have always existed. This is where God comes into play. God, you see, isn't bound by the laws of science, since he obviously created them in order to have everything abide by these laws. Illogical? Let's see: God is Timeless; he has always existed (not just for all time). God isn't bound to a form of matter, hence, he is everywhere. Finally, God isn't bound by space, he is endless. Again, sounding illogical? Okay, let's look at the energy theory again, if nothing within the laws of science can create it, then something has to exist outside the laws of science in order to create that which is bound to them. God is the missing piece to this puzzle.
So, God is timeless, not bound by space or matter. He has always been and always will be.
It should now be plain and obvious that nothing created God! :)
Okay, good try, but them why is there only one god? (assuming you are monotheist) where one exists another should also exist. Doesn't he/she/it get lonely?
You haven't argued my facts, so you assume that I am right?
"...why is there only one god?"
That is irrelevant, all that we can know is that a God exists in order for all things to have been created.
"Where one exists another should also exist."
How ridiculous.
Consider this:
I have a couch; a big red fluffy couch. According to your theory, I must have a second big red fluffy couch, even if I never purchased one. Even if I did purchase a second, I would then have to purchase an infinite amount of couches to fit your theory. Obviously I cannot purchase an infinite amount of couches, so your theory is wrong.
"Doesn't he/she/it get lonely?"
Irrelevant again, and impossible to know (unless we were given a sign, and I haven't seen any).
That is irrelevant, all that we can know is that a God exists in order for all things to have been created.
You can't even know that, seeing as you placed god outside the universe.
I have a couch; a big red fluffy couch. According to your theory, I must have a second big red fluffy couch, even if I never purchased one. Even if I did purchase a second, I would then have to purchase an infinite amount of couches to fit your theory. Obviously I cannot purchase an infinite amount of couches, so your theory is wrong.
He made a reasonable inquiry. You placed god outside of the universe, and thus made god unknowable. How can you claim to know anything about him? How can you even find the idea of more than one god ridiculous when there is no knowledge from which you can form a proper ridicule?
You're looking at this the wrong way, why does everybody do what you are doing...?
"You placed god outside the universe, and thus made god unknowable."
I don't claim to know him, I state that the evidence of his existence lies all around us.
"How can you claim to know anything about him?"
I don't claim much at all, in fact, as far as I have claimed, God exists beyond our universe outside the laws of science. Apart from that, I haven't claimed to know anything about him. Besides what I have shown, there really isn't much else that is possible to find out, at least that's how it is right now.
"How can you even find the idea of more than one god ridiculous when there is no knowledge from which you can form a proper ridicule?"
Who cares if it does not apply knowledge? I certainly don't, and that is because my argument actually works quite solidly against his theory; even you must admit that.
I don't claim to know him, I state that the evidence of his existence lies all around us.
Since you placed him outside the universe, you can't know him. This is because anything outside the universe is intrinsically unable to be perceived. Therefore, you can't claim to have evidence lying around for him because if you can't know anything about god, you can't know if alleged evidence belongs to god. You created a contradiction.
I don't claim much at all, in fact, as far as I have claimed, God exists beyond our universe outside the laws of science. Apart from that, I haven't claimed to know anything about him. Besides what I have shown, there really isn't much else that is possible to find out, at least that's how it is right now.
You claimed that evidence exists all around us that points to him. This is a form of knowing. You asserted that god is beyond the laws of science, this is merely an assumption due to definition of god, it isn't knowledge since you can't know what lies outside the universe.
Further, we don't even know that there is an outside of this universe. You've placed your god into a realm of idle speculation, just one step away from personally acknowledged fantasy.
Who cares if it does not apply knowledge? I certainly don't, and that is because my argument actually works quite solidly against his theory; even you must admit that.
At your age there's a lot I didn't know. I kind of miss that, actually, because in this world the more you know the more ideas you must exclude from possibility. Your argument rests upon premises which are faulty but you don't know enough about science yet to appreciate this fact.
Logic only works if the premises are sound. Yours are not.
This applies to trees, rocks, asteroids, Planet Earth... well... I'll probably be here for a long time should I continue. Anyway, the point worth mentioning is that all of these creations abide by the laws of science, such as time, matter and space.
Pretext for special pleading.
So, the next point to mention is the rule of energy; it can neither be created nor destroyed. This rule abides within the laws of science, therefore, energy cannot be created or destroyed by anything which also abides by these laws.
Incorrect on two counts. It is the law of conservation of energy and matter. It is a form of symmetry in our universe. Second, it means that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Now that we have set up the big question of what created everything if everything could not have created itself or have always existed.
The laws imply conservation, meaning that the matter and energy existed in some form eternally, even though our universe did not.
This is where God comes into play.
You've been given a rope, let's watch you hang yourself:
God, you see, isn't bound by the laws of science, since he obviously created them in order to have everything abide by these laws.
It is neither obvious nor how the universe works. The laws of the universe are not creations, they are intrinsic properties of matter and energy, which have always existed. You are special pleading for magic. You may as well say "god is a wizard."
Illogical? Let's see: God is Timeless; he has always existed (not just for all time)
Instead of answering the question, you simply define god in a way as not needing a creator. This is basically like equivocating.
Imagine the following:
Bob: I sure wish we had fuel for this car, instead of having to walk to the gas station.
Sarah: I know! I'll simply define cars to not need fuel, they will always run without needing energy!
Bob: ...We still can't drive.
God isn't bound to a form of matter, hence, he is everywhere.
Which is a contrived way of saying he doesn't exist. If god is defined to be everywhere, then there is no region setting him apart from the universe by contrast. You end up just equivocating the universe to mean god.
Finally, God isn't bound by space, he is endless.
You violated your premise of space being finite.
Okay, let's look at the energy theory again, if nothing within the laws of science can create it, then something has to exist outside the laws of science in order to create that which is bound to them. God is the missing piece to this puzzle.
You're not very good with logic. If nothing can create or destroy matter, it means it is eternal.
It should now be plain and obvious that nothing created God! :)
You've been given a rope, let's watch you hang yourself:
Such statements can lead to your criminal prosecution. People have been known to commit suicide after receiving such a statement, especially one which they might construe as being a threat.
It is neither obvious nor how the universe works. The laws of the universe are not creations, they are intrinsic properties of matter and energy, which have always existed. You are special pleading for magic. You may as well say "god is a wizard."
In laymen terms, yes. He is supernatural, as is wizardry.
Illogical? Let's see: God is Timeless; he has always existed (not just for all time)
Instead of answering the question, you simply define god in a way as not needing a creator. This is basically like equivocating.
Imagine the following:
Bob: I sure wish we had fuel for this car, instead of having to walk to the gas station.
Sarah: I know! I'll simply define cars to not need fuel, they will always run without needing energy!
Bob: ...We still can't drive.
Neither Bob nor Sarah are supernatural. They are incapable of such a feat.
God is not timeless. That is the main flaw with many of these debates - the overuse of linear thinking. People immediately say, 'well then who created god?' The answer is not one about creation - He does not live according to the confines of time. He is beyond time, he does not experience it. You take most of these statements out of context, as well as the original debater's lack of knowledge. I would put it as 'God is not in this universe, thus He is not bound by the laws of this universe.'
Finally, God isn't bound by space, he is endless.
You violated your premise of space being finite
God is neither space nor in space. He is, as I said before, not of this universe.
In laymen terms, yes. He is supernatural, as is wizardry.
Which is a nonanswer to any question. Real answers take research and evidence, resorting to magic is a form of handwaving.
Neither Bob nor Sarah are supernatural. They are incapable of such a feat.
Which is irrelevant to the metaphor. The metaphor describes how you cannot define a problem away in the face of a premise.
God is not timeless. That is the main flaw with many of these debates - the overuse of linear thinking. People immediately say, 'well then who created god?' The answer is not one about creation - He does not live according to the confines of time. He is beyond time, he does not experience it. You take most of these statements out of context, as well as the original debater's lack of knowledge. I would put it as 'God is not in this universe, thus He is not bound by the laws of this universe.'
If god is not in this universe, then he is unknowable. Debate ends.
If god is timeless, meaning time doesn't exist for him, then he cannot create, because that requires a realm of existence which has time. Debate ends.
If everything requires creation, like this debate supposes as a premise, including the universe and matter and energy, then god requires a creator in keeping with the premise.
God is neither space nor in space. He is, as I said before, not of this universe.
Space is a form of topology. Saying god is neither space nor in space is saying that god doesn't comprise the whole set of topology points, nor does god exist.
If you resort to the "out of universe" argument you end the debate.
"Logic only works if the premises are sound. Yours are not."
I disagree, as you have done little to show this.
"Pretext for special pleading."
A laughable point of view.
"It is a law of conversion of energy and matter."
Rather than delve into the complex conversions of matter and energy, I chose to briefly explain the laws of which energy is bound to (naturally matter can be tied together with this - something you failed to notice). Apart from that, you've pretty much just restated what I have said.
"The laws imply conversion, meaning that the matter and energy existed in some form eternally, even though our universe did not."
Okay, where did that prior form of energy come from? Another prior form? That argument leads itself in more circles of confusion. Rather than confuse ourselves, it is easier and by far more logical to believe in God.
"You've been given a rope, let's watch you hang yourself..."
Suicide implementation? Unlike previous statements you've made this one is not laughable. If having fun at the expense of suicide is a common act for you, then perhaps you should consider psychological counseling, or better yet, hanging yourself just to see what it is like.
"It is neither obvious nor how the universe works."
Of course not, I am not here to give meaning to how the universe works. I have given a clear idea as to how that universe was created, in order to prove God's existence.
"The laws of the universe are not creations, they are intrinsic properties of matter and energy, which have always existed."
Prove your accusations. I've proved mine. The laws of conversion aren't good enough excuses.
"You may as well say 'god is a wizard.'"
Pathetic, really, you cannot properly disprove God's concept of creating the universe, so you're switching to having fun at the expense of belief in God. I have proved that he isn't bound by the laws of science, as it isn't possible for anything within to have always existed, and that therefore something needs to exist outside these laws in order to create what is bound to them. What have you proved? Not much, you've made some nice accusations and a few stabs at another "possible" logical explanation for the existence of matter and energy, but you haven't backed any of it up with a solid explanation.
"Instead of answering the question, you simply define God in a way as not needing a creator."
Incorrect, please re-read my arguments more carefully.
"This is basically like equivocating."
No, you're simply either very short-sighted or just idiotic.
Bob and Sarah: not helping your case. For one thing neither one of them created the car that they're driving nor the petrol needed to fuel it. They are both forms of matter, as is the car and fuel; this is what you seem to be confused with. What I state is that God exists outside of Time, Matter and Space; that he is not bound to them. Your example of Bob and Sarah does not properly relate to my theory of God. Therefore, your example is nothing more than a short story (which mine isn't, as I have given solid proof of mine).
"Which is a contrived way of saying he doesn't exist."
If he isn't bound to a form of matter, then how does that conclude that he doesn't exist? By saying "hence, he is everywhere," I made reference to many suggestions made by modern day Christians, in order to show a connection. God is set apart from the universe, because the universe is matter and energy, neither of which God is bound to. Here's a slight correction:
God isn't bound to a form of matter, hence, "he is everywhere."
"You violated your premise of space being finite."
Not if you manage to connect the dots, which happen to be my arguments. If God is set apart from the universe, then he is an endless entity of which we know little of. What we can know for sure is that he is not bound by Time, Matter or Space.
"You're not very good with logic."
If so, then you must have the logical capacity of a table.
"If nothing can create or destroy matter, it means it is eternal."
Correction: Nothing can create or destroy matter unless it is created or destroyed by something set apart from the laws of science. God is the logical explanation.
"It's obvious that god is nothing."
A personal opinion that isn't backed up properly. Denied. Try Again Another Day.
That is why you read an argument before posting a rebuttal.
Rather than delve into the complex conversions of matter and energy, I chose to briefly explain the laws of which energy is bound to (naturally matter can be tied together with this - something you failed to notice). Apart from that, you've pretty much just restated what I have said.
I was correcting terminology.
Okay, where did that prior form of energy come from? Another prior form? That argument leads itself in more circles of confusion. Rather than confuse ourselves, it is easier and by far more logical to believe in God.
Do you have no concept of eternal or infinity? Conservation of mass and energy implies eternal energy. In other words it never "came from" anywhere. It always was and will be. However since this confuses you, you prefer to insert a "wizard."
Put very simply, matter never was created, nor was energy. Since you apparently cannot conceive of this, you find it easier to grasp the idea that an imaginary mind always existed and created the energy and matter. This is a completely unnecessary assumption on your part because matter and energy never needed creation in the first place.
Suicide implementation? Unlike previous statements you've made this one is not laughable. If having fun at the expense of suicide is a common act for you, then perhaps you should consider psychological counseling, or better yet, hanging yourself just to see what it is like.
Ah, you're Australian. I guess the colloquial phrase never crossed the ocean.
Of course not, I am not here to give meaning to how the universe works. I have given a clear idea as to how that universe was created, in order to prove God's existence.
By meaning you intend to say "purpose." The universe is meaningful without god or wizards, but it is a purposeless universe.
You gave no idea how the universe was created. You merely said "god did it" which is the same as saying "wizard did it" or "frosty the snowman did it" or "magic man did it." Describing how the universe was created requires elucidating a process which leads to the formation of a universe and demonstrating that there is evidence that this process lead to the formation of our universe.
You also apparently didn't read what I said: the laws of the universe come from innate characteristics of the matter and energy making it up. There was no need for a creative process to enforce or develop laws.
Pathetic, really, you cannot properly disprove God's concept of creating the universe, so you're switching to having fun at the expense of belief in God.
There is nothing for me to disprove, because nothing was propped up through evidence, logic or reasoning for me to knock down.
I have proved that he isn't bound by the laws of science, as it isn't possible for anything within to have always existed, and that therefore something needs to exist outside these laws in order to create what is bound to them.
You have ASSERTED those things, you have not proven anything. Do I really need to distinguish the difference between proof, premises, and assertions for you?
Not much, you've made some nice accusations and a few stabs at another "possible" logical explanation for the existence of matter and energy, but you haven't backed any of it up with a solid explanation.
There's really nothing for me to prove. The law of conservation of mass and energy does it already. Look it up on wikipedia. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. The implications follow and don't require god.
Bob and Sarah: not helping your case. For one thing neither one of them created the car that they're driving nor the petrol needed to fuel it. They are both forms of matter, as is the car and fuel; this is what you seem to be confused with. What I state is that God exists outside of Time, Matter and Space; that he is not bound to them. Your example of Bob and Sarah does not properly relate to my theory of God. Therefore, your example is nothing more than a short story (which mine isn't, as I have given solid proof of mine).
I thought a short story would illustrate a simple truth for you while foregoing the need to draw pictures.
The premise of this debate is who created god. That means god is assumed to necessitate creation. Just as the car in the short story is assumed through premise to necessitate fuel. You simply redefined god to not need creation, just as Sarah negated the premise by defining the car as not needing fuel.
But it's worse than that, whereas an assumption that everything must have originated from something requires a beginning, you forego this restraint for your god by special pleading that your god isn't bound to the premises of the debate, that he is eternal while simultaneously denying the established fact that matter and energy are already known to be noncreateable and indestructible and thus implied to be eternal.
If he isn't bound to a form of matter, then how does that conclude that he doesn't exist? By saying "hence, he is everywhere," I made reference to many suggestions made by modern day Christians, in order to show a connection. God is set apart from the universe, because the universe is matter and energy, neither of which God is bound to. Here's a slight correction:
If "god is everywhere" then it follows that he and the universe are one and the same, thus there is no god.
Being bound is irrelevant to this. We're talking about basic definitions of space, dimension, and the universe. If god is everywhere then you automatically merge the concepts of the universe and god into the universe because an individual requires boundaries that distinguish him or her from the universe.
Not if you manage to connect the dots, which happen to be my arguments. If God is set apart from the universe, then he is an endless entity of which we know little of. What we can know for sure is that he is not bound by Time, Matter or Space.
It's a matter of defined limits. If space is defined to be sub-infinite, then an infinite thing cannot "fit." If you suddenly avoid this limitation by invoking "outside our universe" then you've just entered into pure-speculation-land where nothing is knowable, including the idea that there is even an outside of our universe.
Correction: Nothing can create or destroy matter unless it is created or destroyed by something set apart from the laws of science. God is the logical explanation.
You just made a baseless assertion. You may as well have said "Correction: A five-sided square cannot be created unless something set apart from the laws of logic creates it."
If energy and matter exists eternally then the question is why?
Why does energy and matter exist? Why is this existence eternal?
The answers to these questions would probably prove your case, however, I would find that highly unlikely.
I chose not to rebut straightforward against your arguments because they are rather hard to argue straightforward, so, rather than try and make myself prove the existence of God, I am now asking you to prove that energy and matter does exist eternally. Give why and I'll concede, but if you cannot answer, then your arguments hold no threat toward mine.
However, I must admit, I did have a laugh when I saw you give reference to Wikipedia, because if that is your brilliant place of reference, then I would understand how very wrong you could be.
If you somehow manage to answer, then my next question would be how energy and matter suddenly because bound to the laws of science, and where did these laws come from? Did they appear along with the universe? Why? You have a lot to prove right now, so good luck with that.
If energy and matter exists eternally then the question is why?
Why does energy and matter exist? Why is this existence eternal?
You're asking the wrong question. There is no "why" because our universe has no intent behind it. You mean to ask how, and the answer I can give you is that our universe has interactions between particles, waves, and energy which mirror mathematical models. These mathematical models allow for symmetries and super-symmetries which indicate among other things that processes in our universe may transform but not necessarily change. Conservation is derived from this behaviour, it's a mathematical property which derives from the symmetry of our universe.
I chose not to rebut straightforward against your arguments because they are rather hard to argue straightforward, so, rather than try and make myself prove the existence of God, I am now asking you to prove that energy and matter does exist eternally. Give why and I'll concede, but if you cannot answer, then your arguments hold no threat toward mine.
You mean, besides the empirical fact that matter cannot be created or destroyed, and the implication of its eternal nature?
However, I must admit, I did have a laugh when I saw you give reference to Wikipedia, because if that is your brilliant place of reference, then I would understand how very wrong you could be.
People who are wrong tend to take out their insecurities on small details, and then devolve into making their entire argument around criticising those minute details instead of seeing the whole picture. I should know, it used to be my flaw a decade ago, but it isn't any longer. Try not to make this mistake.
If you must know, my knowledge comes from physics textbooks; however since they are off-line and because the on-line sources to document and support my position come from recondite mathematical theory that is well beyond your level (you're in high school, as inferred from some of the debates you created, and therefore obviously not at the level of post-graduate physics and maths) you should just accept wikipedia as a useful reference. If you have doubts you can always check the sources wikipedia provides, or maybe a university student was kind enough to document Noether's theorem on a website. Either way, you take what you can get.
If you somehow manage to answer, then my next question would be how energy and matter suddenly because bound to the laws of science, and where did these laws come from? Did they appear along with the universe? Why? You have a lot to prove right now, so good luck with that.
I believe I already answered your question. The laws emerge from the interactions between matter and energy at the subatomic level, the laws are an intrinsic part of matter and energy. They aren't bound by laws, laws describe simply how matter and energy behave.
To use a prosaic example, electromagnetic radiation at a frequency of 670nm is perceived as red. There is no law-giver assigning red to 670nm, it simply follows from a particular set of photo-sensitive cells in our eyes being able to accept that range of frequency, and our brain perceiving it as red due to natural selection. In other words, you're asking me how 670nm became bound to red, when there wasn't an intentional assignment of values.
If you really want to know, however, you should read this:
For the record, there is no evidence or proof of god. Therefore his response, while simple, was acceptable. It's your burden to prove that god exists, since it is a positive claim.
I mean it doesn't matter if God exists or not, if we can't have a conversation with him or if we don't have any way of learning anything about him because he is not of our world, then how can we answer the question of WHO made God????
Let me get this straight before I begin. God is beyond anyone's imagination. He always was and always will be.
The whloe universe is winding down. Why? I t depends on something else. Everything in this world must be dependant on something, which means there must be something or someONE who is dependant on nothing but itself. God. How could he have a creater? and if so, that person, presence, spirt, god, whatever you want to call it, would have to be more powerful, and would be called God
Also, God created everything. Time is a thing right, and if God created everYTHING, He created time. So he must have come before time, and that is my reason as to haw God always has been and always will be. He has no creator. End of.
