The Instigator
MagicAintReal
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Bible15
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

A Divine Being Created The Universe

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
MagicAintReal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/27/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 516 times Debate No: 79115
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

MagicAintReal

Con

Resolution

A divine being created the universe.

Burden of Proof is on YOU (PRO)

Pro has 40,000 characters (4 sets of 10,000 characters) and the BoP to demonstrate that a divine being created the universe.

Con has only 30,000 characters (3 sets of 10,000 characters) to refute Pro's claims.

Definitions (from Google definitions)

divine - of, from, or like God or a god

being - existence

created - cause (something) to happen as a result of one's actions

universe - all existing matter and space considered as a whole

*There are no rounds or round rules, so there is NO ACCEPTANCE ROUND; just start debating and use the characters as you wish to meet your burden of proof.

*The provided definitions are agreed on by posting your first argument.

*Definitions can be changed however, before posting your first argument, in the comments section, as long as both Pro and Con agree.

May the best argument win.
Bible15

Pro

Romans 1:20 - “For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.”

Order Within Our Universe

The universe is logically arranged into superclusters, clusters, and galaxies. In turn, galaxies are logically arranged into solar systems.

As the Earth rotates on its axis allowing the proper warming and cooling of its surface and as it revolves around the sun at a speed of approximately 67,000 miles per hour, it has been maintaining a perfect distance from the sun for billions of years. A fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life impossible on Earth.

Why are we still alive? Because the planets in our solar system move fast enough to not be pulled closer to the sun, but not too fast so that they move away.

This order is not unique to our solar system. More than 500 solar systems have been found in our galaxy, and every year new ones are discovered. It is estimated that there are tens of billions or maybe even hundreds of billions of solar systems like ours.

Order Within Us

We are made of some 100 trillion cells, each like a walled city with controlled entrances and exits, a central government, power plants, defense agencies, a transportation system, a communication network, and waste disposal facilities.

Why It Matters

Order is the condition of logical arrangement. The abundance of order within our universe and within us suggests the universe is the result of a logical mind rather than the result of unintelligent natural processes.

The Language of Life

The DNA within our cells is the universal language of life consisting of the letters A, C, G, and T, which combine to form sentences, or hereditary information like your eye color, skin color, etc. Does this universal language not imply that we are the result of an intelligent mind rather than the result of unintelligent natural processes?

The Bible

Through the Bible, the most translated and distributed book in the world, God tells us He exists and reveals His power through, for example, the fulfillment of Bible prophecy written centuries before the event. Through the prophet Isaiah, for example, God predicted not only the destruction of what was at the time the most powerful city in the world, but also its eternal desolation and the name of the conqueror, Cyrus, 200 years before all this happened, before Cyrus was even born!

Conclusion

Jehovah God is the Creator of the Universe, and He has given enough evidence for us to have reasonable faith based on the facts as opposed to blind faith which is not in harmony with what God wants which is that we use our "power of reason" (Romans 12:1). So, those who reject His existence clearly seen in the creation, as it says in Romans 1:20, are without excuse.

Debate Round No. 1
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks Pro for taking the debate.

I reject the resolution that a divine being created the universe, because I reject the idea that the universe was created at all.

Being somewhat of a science guy, I wish to explain how our universe indeed has a natural origin, but that this origin does not require creation or a creator, divine or otherwise; the expression of our universe has a natural explanation.

The way I like to explain this to inquisitors who may not have been aware of the scientific understanding of our universe's origins is in three parts.

1. Quantum Fluctuations are what "nothing" is.
2. The universe's total energy is zero.
3. The Big Bang is the expression, not creation, of our universe.

*

1. Quantum fluctuations = nothing

To understand "nothing," one needs to define "something."
"Something" is a physical concept that is best explained by physical sciences, specifically particle physics.
Physically speaking, to be something, at the most basic level, something must have particles/atoms/wavelengths/energy/matter/radiation.

The absence of all of these basic characteristics of "something" leaves us with "nothing."
The absence of all of these physical properties, nothing, is a concept of particle physics, because the presence of all of these physical properties, is also a concept of particle physics.

Particle physics has been observing and testing nothing for a while. The very science used to explain what something is, has discovered that nothing, in a post big bang universe, is a vacuum of empty space with no matter, no energy, no radiation, no particles, and no atoms, BUT there is a detectable faint physical field; its existence is ubiquitous.

You might be thinking...Hold on! A physical field would be something! A physical field can't be nothing...
I know...I know it sounds contradictory, but this quantum physical field isn't a steady state of something at all. It's empty, it's void of matter or energy, it doesn't radiate, it has no atoms or full particles, it doesn't have any wavelengths of light...nothing.

What's interesting, but demonstrably true, is that this faint physical field in nothing is simply sub-nuclear particles and their counter parts, antiparticles, popping into existence and just as quickly popping out of existence by annihilating each other constantly. This is called quantum fluctuation.
https://www.youtube.com...

Please see the above video from leading particle physicist, Lawrence Krauss; his explanation is great.

I must stress here that quantum fluctuations are everywhere and are what nothing is.
I'm serious here.
Any idea you'v ever had of nothing is not the case, unless your idea is that nothing is simply quantum fluctuations.
So, say all you wish that nothing can't have something in it...it doesn't matter (pun intended); nothing = quantum fluctuations.

When you strip all of something down, you are left with quantum fluctuations...the absence of something is nothing. There is no "nothing" without these fluctuations, period.
http://scholarsresearchlibrary.com...

In this nothing state, quantum fluctuations, these sub-nuclear particles exist and don't exist at the same time (annihilation)...doesn't sound like something to me.
Physicists are correct in calling this state nothing.

This state of nothingness is actually unstable; it can't remain nothing, such that with the many sub-nuclear particles popping in and out of existence constantly, energy is inevitable from this instability.

Energy is just the other side of the coin to matter, and this means that if sub-nuclear particles appearing from quantum fluctuations eventually lead to the expression of energy, then matter can come from this unstable nothingness.

*

2. The total energy of the universe = 0.

So all of the matter and energy in the universe is positive energy. You, me, the earth, the sun, the stars, the other planets, galaxies...are all positive energy. They have matter/energy.

All of the gravity in the universe is negative energy. This negative energy acts on the positive energy by way of gravitational force.

All of the positive energy (+matter) in the universe is cancelled out, by force, by all of the negative energy (-gravity) in the universe.
http://astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org...

The universe's total energy is zero.
The universe's total energy can be represented as a set: [+matter, -gravity]

As mentioned earlier, in quantum fluctuations, there is no (+) matter or (-) gravity...no positive energy, and no negative energy, which as a set looks like:
[+0,-0] = 0
However, because [+0,-0] is unstable, which guarantees the expression of energy, a dense energy state the size of a sub-nuclear particle in quantum fluctuations (the big bang) would express positive energy and negative energy.
So from nothing [+0,-0] = 0 comes something [+1,-1] = 0. The total energy is 0, but we have some matter (+1) and some gravity (-1); they cancel each other out to equal zero.

Now, I mentioned that quantum fluctuations are in a vacuum of empty space, and this is why quantum fluctuations are also referred to as vacuum fluctuations.
But pre big bang, there was no space, so there was no vacuum of empty space. Instead space and time fluctuated in and out of quantum fluctuations just like the sub-nuclear particles.

So pre big bang, we have quantum fluctuations [+0,-0].
There is no matter/energy/atoms/particles/radiation/space/time...nothing. Again space and time are variables that fluctuate in and out with the quantum fluctuations before we have any matter or gravity to speak of.

At pre big bang quantum fluctuations [+0,-0] = 0
Instability-->big bang [+1,-1] = 0
The universe expands [+10,-10] = 0
Inflation accelerates [+100000,-100000] = 0
Now there is lots of matter, and lots of gravity [+1000000000000,-1000000000000] = 0
Still total energy = 0, but we have (+matter) and (-gravity).

*

3. The Big Bang expressed the universe.

With the right radio telescope, even you can see that the space between the stars above us isn't just black space, it's filled with microwave radiation.
http://science.nasa.gov...

All of this cosmic background microwave radiation, which is a "black body" as it absorbs all intercepted electromagnetic radiation, is nearly a uniform glow between stars across the universe, and is a proven indicator of an expandable hot dense state such as the big bang being the cosmos' origin.
http://www.mpg.de...

The small variations in the microwave's uniformity, show a very specific pattern, the same as that expected of a fairly uniformly distributed hot dense state that has expanded to the current size of the universe.

These variations have been measured in detail, and match what would be expected if small thermal variations, generated by quantum fluctuations of sub-nuclear particles, had expanded to the size of the observable universe we see today.
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk...

Yeah, that link is from Cambridge...I know, argument from authority...go to page 9 of the PDF which is page 2 of the preface.

So, from quantum fluctuations [+0,-0], matter, energy, gravity, and space-time were expressed through the big bang [+1,-1].
This is not creation...it's expression.

*

The verb "create" is defined as "cause to happen."
To happen, there needs to be time.
Prior to the expression of (+) matter and (-) gravity [+0,-0], there was no space or time.
So to claim that the universe was created, a temporal concept that requires time to happen, is nonsensical because there was no time to allow for creation.
Therefore, the universe could not have been created before time, and the universe cannot have a creator.
Quantum fluctuations are neither a creator nor divine.

On to Pro's claims...Pro claims:
"The universe is logically arranged into superclusters, clusters, and galaxies. In turn, galaxies are logically arranged into solar systems."

My Response:
Pro smuggles in a logical arranger (in this case the christian god) by using the phrase 'logically arranged."
Without explaining the mechanism that the logical arranger used to logically arrange everything, we have no explanation that any of this "arranging" was done.

Think of a snowflake. We know snowflakes are a result of the water cycle, "an unintelligent process" as Pro would call it. Snowflakes appear to be arranged symmetrically and logically, because they are six-fold radially symmetrical; this is a quite complex shape that appears to be arranged logically.

However, it is well understood that the snowflake is a result of the water cycle, which is, as Pro would call it, an "unintelligent process."

So simply because things may appear to be arranged, it doesn't mean that they are.

So when Pro claims "order is the condition of logical arrangement," ask yourself:
Is the symmetry of a snowflake ordered proportionally?
Then ask yourself, was there some "logical arranger" of the snowflake?
The fact that natural processes like the water cycle can result in the order seen in snowflakes illustrates the lack of a need for a "logical arranger" (god) when discussing order in the universe.

Pro continues:
"God predicted not only the destruction of what was at the time the most powerful city in the world, but also its eternal desolation and the name of the conqueror, Cyrus, 200 years before all this happened, before Cyrus was even born!"

My Response:
If god knows all, he knows the future.
If god created all, he created the future and the things that interact thereof.
So, it is not a prediction when the things you created did exactly as you planned them to; this is just saying what you created and planned to have happen.
Pro's example is not a prediction; it's just an explanation of what god himself made happen.

So, I ask Pro:
Why should we consider anything the bible says to be true or valid?
Bible15

Pro

Bible15 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
MagicAintReal

Con

Yeah snowflakes...extend.
Bible15

Pro

Sorry, I have been busy with school. So, Con's argument is basically the universe doesn't need God to exist so he did not create the universe. God, however, is not something we need to fill gaps. Could the universe be the result of random chance or always exist? The believer in God does not reject that possibility. Rather, he accepts the most logical conclusion based on his observations like Con's snowflakes. These beautifully designed hexagonal snowflakes, are they really merely the result of an unnatural process by itself? Also, consider the mechanical gears in nature. We used to think mechanical gears were human invention until we found it in the Issue leafhopper, an insect that uses those mechanical gears for precision when jumping. Do these mechanical gears not imply a divine designer? Furthermore, the Bible claims to be of God and it gives evidence of his power through the fulfillment of the specific Bible prophecies written down before the events. The destruction of the most powerful city in the world, it's conqueror, and its eternal desolation were written down some 200 years before it happened. Many have tried to rebuild Babylon and it is still ruins today. Certainly, this should give us reasonable faith based on facts in the Bible's promises for the future. Could all the fulfilled prophecies be coincidences? While I do not reject the possibility, it sure is a leap of blind faith to make such a claim! Thank you for your time, and again, sorry that I have been busy with school work to answer before. Back to Con now.
Debate Round No. 3
MagicAintReal

Con

No worries about the forfeit, it's ok, I've been pretty busy at work too, no biggy.

Pro claims:
" Con's argument is basically the universe doesn't need God to exist so he did not create the universe."

My Response:
Nope.
My argument is basically the universe wasn't created, because creation is a temporal concept contingent on time, which did not exist at [+0,-0], therefore creation is impossible.
Positive energy and negative energy were expressed from quantum fluctuations through the big bang.

Pro posits:
"are [snowflakes] really merely the result of an unnatural process by itself?"

My Response:
Unnatural process? No.
What I think Pro meant to say was, "Are snowflakes merely the result of a natural process by itself?"
To which I respond yes.
The water cycle and the freezing of condensed moisture in clouds are both natural processes that, by themselves, allow for beautifully ordered snowflakes to result; no intelligence is needed.

Pro surmises:
"We used to think mechanical gears were human invention until we found it in the Issue leafhopper, an insect that uses those mechanical gears for precision when jumping. Do these mechanical gears not imply a divine designer?"

My Response:
These mechanical gears do not imply a divine designer.
I was eating lobster at a seafood restaurant when I realized that lobsters must be designed, because they have tongs for claws used for precision when defending themselves. There I was, using a human-made tong-like claw cracker on a tong-like claw...

All this time I thought that tongs were a human invention, but now, poof, I can only conclude that there must be a designer of the lobster's claws on my plate.

Wait, wait, wait.
Maybe just because the claws of a lobster kind of look like the tongs that a human would make, doesn't mean that the claws of the lobster share a similar origin with the tongs of the human.

Just like how krill have a leaf blower,
or the barnacle has a rake,
or the coconut crab has a crowbar,
or stomatopods have a sledgehammer,
or caprella have a clamp,
or remipedes have an oar.

This link below is an interactive picture clicking activity that shows the human-like tools that crustaceans use in nature.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

According to Berkeley:
"[A]rthropod limbs have diversified over evolutionary time into a variety of useful shapes...arthropod legs can be adapted to do tough jobs (like prying open clam shells and slicing up other arthropods)...[,and] range of motion provided by joints allows the limbs to evolve a variety of functions...having many legs means that there are more legs to handle specialized tasks...[legs] can evolve to probe, grasp or swim."
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

So, even though these gears are found in some insect, it is not an indication that the organism must be designed, because it is more likely an indication that the organism acquired the ability/tool over evolutionary time to survive long enough to reproduce.

Pro then begins proselytizing:
"The Bible claims to be of God and it gives evidence of his power through the fulfillment of the specific Bible prophecies written down before the events. The destruction of the most powerful city in the world, it's conqueror, and its eternal desolation were written down some 200 years before it happened. Many have tried to rebuild Babylon and it is still ruins today."

My Response:
Why should I consider anything the bible says to be authoritative on matters of the universe?
If the bible is not being used to demonstrate a divine creation of the universe, then you're just proselytizing.

Let's assume these were true prophecies...what does that have to do with the "creation" of the universe?
The bible predicted something correctly, therefore we live in a divinely created universe?
Non sequitur.
Coincidences or not, prophecies do not speak to the origins of our universe.

I continue to reject the claim that a divine being created the universe.
Bible15

Pro

Bible15 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
@whiteflame

thanks for the vote
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
RFD:

Pro's case engages in a lot of question begging. He never answers the central question, instead implying that there is only one answer to all of the questions he poses, and that that answer must include a divine being who created the universe. It was Pro's BoP to show that such a being exists, not to continually offer reasons why it could. Moreover, he never explains why natural means can't exist for the creation of the universe, merely why it might make more sense for them to be created. However, what makes Pro's case most vulnerable is that he never addresses the question of creation, just the continued existence and order of the universe.

Con addresses that question in great detail, and his quantum fluctuations argument is simply dropped. That argument is not only the sole means by which the universe's creation is explored, but also the sole reason that has a lot of evidence behind it. I can't look at that evidence, evaluate it, and then ignore it as Pro seems to want me to do in favor of the many questions he's asking me to consider. Quantum fluctuations is a means of order in the universe - in fact, it appears to be all the means that are necessary. So Con's tacitly responding to Pro's questions by co-opting his main talking point, something Pro never addresses.

Hence, I vote Con.
Posted by PTW 1 year ago
PTW
Absolute tosh!!, please provide proof of any divine being??!.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
MagicAintRealBible15Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments. Sources to Con for both using them extensively and effectively comparing them to Pro's single source (The Bible), showcasing both why I should accept them over Pro's source and how they factor into my decision of what's the best supported means for the inception (or expression) of the universe. Conduct to Con for the two forfeits.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
MagicAintRealBible15Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ff