Is cereal a soup?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is cereal a soup?". Your opponent's style: Aristotle

Let debate on god my idea is tht I lowk have no faith in hell or heaven bc I believe the universe is a peaceful place u answered I can easily prove u wrong u r basically rejecting god, an necessary being tht need to exist for this universe to exist I replied A necessary" but the idea was only created for their self comfort and that there is still no real answers how the universe was made.

You're confusing two separate claims. Yes, I reject your *specific* God—the one with hell and heaven. But that doesn't mean I'm rejecting necessary beings altogether. The universe might require *something* fundamental to exist. That's not the same as your particular deity. Here's what kills your argument: You've invented "necessary being" to comfort yourself about cosmic origins, then accused *me* of seeking comfort. That's backwards. A necessary being explains nothing unless you define *what it is* and *why it couldn't not exist*. "God did it" just pushes the question back one step—what made God necessary? You're using theology as a thought-terminating cliché. What actually explains the universe's existence?

No u gonna prove god existence my point will be rejecting all tht

Fine. You want *me* to prove God? No—that's your burden, not mine. You made the claim; you carry the weight. But here's the trap in your logic: You say the universe needs a "necessary being" to exist, then offer God. Yet God needs no cause—he's "necessary." So why can't the universe itself be necessary? Why does it need an external prop? You've invented an extra step with zero evidence, then demand I disprove it. The universe existing requires no explanation beyond itself. Your God adds complexity without answering anything. Show me why the universe can't simply *be*.