The Instigator
Sargon
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
KeytarHero
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Big Bang cosmology supports atheism over theism.

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 4 votes the winner is...
Sargon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,091 times Debate No: 35518
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (4)

 

Sargon

Pro

Ave.

The resolution of this debate states 'Big Bang cosmology supports atheism over theism.' I will be arguing that BB cosmology supports the conclusion that god does not exist. Con will be arguing that BB cosmology supports the conclusion that god does exist. The winner of the debate will be the person who demonstrates their case with a preponderance of the evidence.

The first round is for acceptance of the debate format and rules. For the second round, both sides will present their opening statement. For the third round, both sides will rebutt their opponents opening statement. The final round will be used for further debate and closing remarks.

God is defined as the personal (rational and conscious) cause of the universe, matter, space-time, and everything else that exists.

Vale.
KeytarHero

Con

I accept Pro's terms and definition of God. I await his opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Sargon

Pro

Ave.

I am glad to have the opportunity to debate KeytarHero about Big Bang cosmology and the existence of god. I’m almost certain that he will prove to be a worthy opponent, as one of the highest ranked (ninth place)[1] Christian debaters on the site. I’ll begin with some preliminary notes before jumping into my arguments.

The winner of this debate should be the person who proves their case beyond a preponderance of the evidence. This means that most of the evidence favors their side. It is not sufficient for Con to take down my case alone, as he must give his own. On the same token, it is not sufficient for me to take down Con’s case alone, as I must present my own, too. I’m sure that we both agree on this, but I want to make sure the audience understands how voting should be done.

I’ll start with a little lesson about physics. There are two ‘’types’’ of mechanics, classical mechanics and quantum mechanics [2]. Classical mechanics deals with things on the scale of atoms, and quantum mechanics deals with things below the scale of atoms. Classical mechanics is the most important mechanism for this specific argument. The theory of general relativity is part of classical mechanics, and it describes space-time and how gravity functions [3]. Since Einstein elucidated general relativity in 1915, physicists have derived metrics from his equation that describe the universe[4]. A metric describes the geometric and causal structure of space-time [5]. Physicists such as Alexander Friedmann, Georges Lemaitre, Howard Percy Robertson, and Robert M. Walker have, over time, derived metrics from relativity [6]. These are called Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRK) metrics. The FLRK metric describes a universe that is homogeneous, isotropic, and expanding [7]. These metrics also state that every finite interval of time is half-open [8]. This means that if you have a finite interval of time, such as an hour, you can divide that state into half an hour and another half an hour. An initial state of time is a finite interval, ergo, it is half-open. But if it is half-open, then it cannot be an initial state, because you can divide it in half. This creates a problem with the notion of a god who created time. God could only cause time if there was a first state of time for him to cause. However, this is contradicted by the evidence from physics which states that there is no such thing. Ergo, physics contradicts an attribute of god, making physics supportive of the conclusion that god does not exist.

The singularity that is alleged to have existed before the Big Bang could represent an initial state of time. However, modern day physics show that a singularity is not only unnecessary, but a physically impossible state. The primary support for a singularity came from the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorem, but this has been withdrawn. As Hawking himself said in A Brief History of Time, ‘’ there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe--as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account.”[9]. It is physically impossible for a singularity to exist because, if you take any attribute of it, such as density or temperature, it will be represented by some variable such as n over 0, which is mathematically impermissible. [10]

If there is no initial state of time, then the universe can be thought of as a series of instantaneous states, none of which are greater than or equal to thirteen billion years ago. This would mean that every state of the universe is caused by a previous state of the universe. Here's a helpful diagram to help make this concept easier.



Assume that each of these are a state of the universe, where time equals something different in each state. T=4 is caused by T=3. T-3 is caused by T=2. T=2 is caused by T=1. T=1 is caused by T=.9, ad infinitum.* You never reach a first state of T= because there is no singularity, and because every state of time is half-open. If you assume that we are living in the trillionth state, or some such large number, you can perform the same exercise, but I prefer to keep this simple. The conclusion of this argument is that every state of the universe is caused by a previous state. If the universe is nothing but its states, and all the states are causally explained with reference to another state, then you have a causal explanation of the universe without god.


The Wavelength Function of the Universe (WFU) is a model developed by scientists such as Hawking and Vilenkin. Quentin Smith, professor of the philosophy of physics at Western Michigan University, has explained why this model creates problems for a god who has the trait of causing the universe. As Smith says: ‘’For the wave function of the universe implies there is a 95% probability that the universe came into existence uncaused. If God created the universe, he would contradict this scientific law in two ways. First, the scientific law says that the universe would come into existence because of its natural, mathematical properties, not because of any supernatural forces. Second, the scientific law says the probability is only 95% that the universe would come into existence. But if God created the universe, the probability would be 100% that it would come into existence because God is all-powerful. If God wills the universe to come into existence, his will is guaranteed to be 100% effective.’’ The evidence from physics contradicts a god who created the universe.

The possibility of simultaneous causation also gives the atheist an explanation of matter without reference to god. At the Big Bang, there was simultaneous causation, which is supported by EPR correlations [11]. Simultaneous causation is the idea that ‘’the causal order must not be the temporal order because of the possibility of cause and effect being contemporaneous.’’ [12] The possibility of simultaneous causation allows us to explain the existence of matter without reference to a personal cause. Imagine atoms A, B, and C. A comes into existence and instantaneously causes B, which instantaneously causes C, which instantaneously causes A. All of the atoms have causal explanation, and they all begin to exist at the exact same time. Using the assumptions of the KCA, it can be demonstrated that there is no need to have a personal cause of matter.

In conclusion, physics supports the following conclusions. One, there is no first state of time for god to cause. Two, the universe can be explained without reference to god. Three, the universe could not have been caused by god because the WVU indicates otherwise. Four, matter can be explained without reference to god. Ergo, the traits of god causing time, matter, and the universe cannot be actualized given the evidence from physics. This makes Big Bang cosmology supportive of atheism over theism.

Vale.

References
[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] Ibid
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[7] Ibid
[8] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[9] A Brief History of Time, page fifty.
[10] http://www.math.utah.edu...
[11] http://www.worldscientific.com...
[12] http://plato.stanford.edu...
KeytarHero

Con

I thank Pro for instituting this debate. As I don't have education or formal training in physics, I'm going to assume that Pro's information is correct, especially since this debate is really about the implications of big bang cosmology. I really don't have much to say about physics, as I'd only be speaking as a layman (and not one educated in the field). So I'll use my opening argument to respond to Pro's points that he made in his first argument.

Pro's case

Pro's first argument consists of physics contradicting God's existence because if time half-open, it could always be divided in half and could not have had a beginning caused by God. But this seems like an unwarranted assumption -- after all, how did time begin in the first time? If it had a cause without God, then surely it could have been caused by God, as well. Is Pro's implication that time had no beginning? This is equally unproblematic under a Theistic worldview. I do believe the KCA to be a sound argument, but there are other Theistic arguments that don't rely on time having had a beginning at the big bang (more on that later).

Pro's argument here strikes me as similar to Zeno's Paradox of Motion. As William Lane Craig elucidates, "Zeno argued that before Achilles could cross the stadium, he would have to cross halfway; but before he could cross halfway, he would have to cross a quarter of the way; but before he could cross a quarter of the way, he would have to cross an eighth of the way, and so on to infinity. It is evident that Achilles could not even move! Therefore, Zeno concluded, motion is impossible. Now even though Zeno's argument is difficult to refute, nobody really believes that motion is impossible." [1]

So even if time is half-open, then it seems incredible to think that time had no beginning point. We have still managed to traverse this period of time. If time stretched off into an infinite past, then this present moment would never have come (since one cannot traverse an infinite distance). Since we have traversed the period of time, then there was a beginning point in time, even if one can theoretically divide it indefinitely. Just as there was a beginning point for Zeno to start with before traversing the stadium, there can still be a beginning point despite theoretically being able to divide it indefinitely.

So it seems like saying there was no initial state of time is simply false (and no worries on the diagram disappearing, as I did see it before it vanished). But Pro's argument that you have a causal state without God is simply puzzling. If Pro is arguing that there was no initial state of time, and if that's a problem for the Theist, it's an exact same problem for the Atheist. If there is no initial state of time, then Pro is still without a causal state for the universe (even if he's trying to argue apart from God). He's essentially arguing for a causal state after the universe began, to show that it's a causal state for the beginning of the universe. This strikes me as question-begging.

I would like Pro to explain why the wave function of the universe implies there is a 95% probability that the universe came into existence uncaused. Again, as someone uneducated in the field of physics (which was made clear to Pro prior to the debate), I have no idea why this would be. But even so, it seems that Quentin Smith is arguing that on an Atheistic view of the universe, it has a 95% chance of coming into existence. This seems silly, since if God exists we can easily say the universe had a 100% chance of coming into existence (provided God willed it rather than not willing it to come into existence).

The argument from simultaneous causation is based on an equivocation on the word "nothing" (which is the bread and butter of physicists like Stephen Hawking and Laurence Krauss). If there was simultaneous causation, this is evidence for a Creator, not evidence against a Creator. The KCA is built on the philosophical understand that nothing can come from nothing uncaused, because nothing is literally that -- no thing. It literally does not exist. It has no qualities at all. Simultaneous causation can show that God created the universe, but it does nothing to show that nothing can come from nothing without a cause.

I think I have clearly enough shown why Pro's arguments from physics do not support Atheism over Theism. The reality is that science can't disprove the existence of God because science deals with the physical realm, not the metaphysical. However, science seems to give us some idea that there was an intelligence behind the universe (with the incredible fine-tuning of the universe, the fact that nothing can come from nothing uncaused, etc.). But clearly Pro's case fails to establish Atheism over Theism.

My case

I have actually argued in favor of Theism in some of my previous points responding to Pro's case. There's no reason to think that there was no initial starting point of time for God to cause, even if time is technically half-open. Plus, the implications that Pro reads into physics do not imply what he believes they do.

Even if there was no starting point of time, this is not a problem for Theists. Thomas Aquinas believed that it was quite possible that the universe was eternally existent (the big bang had not yet been discovered in his lifetime). It's sometimes called a Cosmological Argument, but it's actually his First Way, the Argument from Motion. His argument went as follows:

P1: Things do move. Motion is the most obvious form of change.
P2: Change is a passing from potency to act (i.e. from potentiality to actuality).
P3: Nothing passes from potency to act except by something that is in actuality, for it is impossible for a potentiality to actualize itself.
P4: There cannot be an infinite regress of actualizers or movers. If there is no First Mover, there can be no subsequent motion, since all subsequent motion depends on prior movers for its motion.
C: Therefore, there must be a first, Unmoved Mover, a pure actualizer with no potentiality in it that is unactualized. [2]

Many Atheists, like Richard Dawkins, misunderstand this argument. Aquinas did not mean a mover as in something that moves through space. He meant it as a change from potentiality to actuality (such as when a ball is actually red but has the potential to become blue). Nothing can change from potentiality to actuality unless acted on by an outside force (the ball needs someone to paint it blue). Since there cannot be an infinite regress of causes, there must be a first Unmoved Mover, one that has no potentiality but is all actuality.

Similarly, Gottfried Leibniz had an argument that didn't require a temporal universe:

P1: Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
P2: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
P3: The universe exists.
C1: Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1 and 3)
C2: Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God (from 2 and 4).

Note that this argument does not state that everything has a cause, just that everything has an explanation of its existence. The universe is a contingent entity, and God is a necessary entity (so God's explanation of his existence is that he is necessarily existent, like numbers and the laws of logic).

It seems to my that big bang cosmology certainly doesn't support Atheism over Theism. There are good reasons to suppose that God was responsible for the creation of the universe.

I look forward to Pro's response.

[1] William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, InterVarsity Press, Downer's Grove, Il., 2003, p. 475.
[2] Norm Geisler, Baker Enecyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, 2000, pp. 161-162.
Debate Round No. 2
Sargon

Pro

Ave

Con doesn't doubt the physics, so I'll answer some of his questions about the implications of my argument.


My argument is not that time had no beginning. There is a difference between ‘’there is no first state of time’’ and ‘’time had no beginning’’. Even if there is no first state of time, there can still be a beginning in the sense that there is no state of time that existed before 13.9 billion years ago. It’s just that there is no first state of time that god can bring into existence. You can think of it as a middle ground between ‘’time had a beginning’’ and ‘’time existed forever’’.


If every state of time is caused by a previous state of time, then there is nothing for god to cause. Every state of time would be caused by a previous state of time, which is an explanation of why time exists at all. (Time is defined as all of the states of time. If every state of time is causally explained by a previous state of time, you have a causal explanation of time itself.) That seems to be obvious in the same way that a collection of pickets being brown entails the fence being brown.


I don’t think my argument is similar to Zeno’s paradoxes. Zeno’s paradoxes are actually incompatible with my argument. Zeno was trying to show the problems with viewing the world as a series of sub-states (halves divided by halves divided halves), hence the conclusion that motion would be impossible. As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, ‘’
Zeno sought to defend Parmenides by attacking his critics. Parmenides rejected pluralism and the reality of any kind of change: for him all was one indivisible, unchanging reality, and any appearances to the contrary were illusions, to be dispelled by reason and revelation’’[1]. I think his paradoxes are easily solved by invoking super tasks. Supertasks entail dividing finite intervals of time into smaller states of time. I will present the most common way of solving Zeno's paradox through the use of supertasks: The successive distances covered by Achilles as he progressively reaches the mid points of the spans he has left to go through form an infinite series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + … whose sum is 1. Consequently, Achilles will indeed reach point B (x = 1) at t* = 1 P.M. (which is to be expected if he travels with velocity v = 1 km/h, as has been assumed). Then there is no problem whatsoever in splitting up his run into smaller sub-runs and, so, no inherent problem about the notion of supertask. [2] Not only does this work for solving Zeno’s paradox of motion, but it also works for Con’s question about the present moment. How do we come to the present moment if every state of time is half open? I think that super tasks solve this problem easily.



I gave an argument from simultaneous causation to show that matter could come into existence without reference to god. Con does not dispute the evidence from physics that such an event happened at the Big Bang. Instead, Con responds to this argument with a series of bare assertions that are given no support. A bare assertion is when somebody asserts something to be true without evidence. He accuses me of equivocating, which is using words in atypical contexts, on the meaning of the word ‘’nothing’’. There is no evidence presented that I equivocated on the meaning of the word ‘’nothing’’. It is also asserted that simultaneous causation supports the existence of a creator, and no evidence is given for this either. How can an explanation of the origin of matter without a creator give support to one? That doesn’t seem to make any sense. Con also says that my argument ‘’does nothing to show that nothing can come from nothing without a cause’’. This is a straw man. I never argued that simultaneous causation demonstrated something from nothing without cause. In fact, if one reads the argument I presented, they will see that I explicitly stated it had a cause. Allow me to quote my argument again: ‘’Imagine atoms A, B, and C. A comes into existence and instantaneously causes B, which instantaneously causes C, which instantaneously causes A. All of the atoms have causal explanation, and they all begin to exist at the exact same time’’. Note the underlined. Atoms A, B, and C come into existence at the same time, and they all cause each other. Contrary to Con’s straw man argument, I was not asserting that this is an instance of something coming from nothing without cause. The cause was that every atom causes another atom to exist at the same time. It came from nothing, but it came from nothing with a cause. This is not a personal (god) cause, however. Perhaps this diagram will make the concept clearer.



I wanted to get around to presented the evidence for the WFU, because I didn’t have room to do so in the last round. Quentin Smith, professor of the philosophy of physics at West Michigan University, explains the evidence: ‘
’Hawking’s theory is confirmed by observational evidence. This theory predicts our universe has evenly-distributed matter on a large scale, which would be on scales of super-clusters of galaxies. It predicts that the expansion rate of our universe -- our universe has been expanding ever since -- would be almost exactly between the rate of the universe expanding forever and the rate where it expands and then collapses. It also predicts the very early area of rapid expansion near the beginning of the universe called inflation. Hawking's theory exactly predicted what the COBE satellite discovered about the irregularities of the background radiation in the universe.’’



Con asks why the WFU implies a 95% probability of our universe existing. I won’t spend a long time explaining the physics, but here’s a simple explanation: ‘’Hawking's theory is based on assigning numbers to all possible universes. All of the numbers cancel out except for a universe with features our universe possesses.’’ [3] A longer explanation would be quite boring to the readers of the debate (read about sum over histories [4] if you‘re interested). Other than this, Con completely ignores the argument I gave. All he says is that, if god created the universe, the universe would have a 100% chance of coming into being. That’s exactly the problem! If the probability of the universe coming into being was 95%, and the probability would be 100% if god caused it, then god couldn’t have caused it! This is the argument I was trying to make when I invoked the WFU, and Con completely skips over it!


Let’s start with Aquinas. I don’t see how his argument entails god defined as the ‘’the personal (rational and conscious) cause of the universe, matter, space-time, and everything else that exists’’. The argument seems to be a non-starter already. Con himself says that the argument is an attempt to show that an eternally existent universe is compatible with god. If you establish god within the context of an eternally existing universe, then you’re talking about the god this debate is talking about. This debate is talking about a god who causes the universe to exist, not a god in a universe that always existed. Even if Aquinas’s argument stood, it wouldn’t prove ‘’god’’ for this debate at all. The argument also assumes that an infinite causal regress is impossible, which I have disputed earlier in my round.



I agree with the Leibnizian argument when it says that the universe requires an explanation. I think there is an explanation, but that it isn’t god. The explanation of the universe comes from its own existence. If every state of the universe is caused by a previous state, and the universe is defined as all of the states, then the universe has a causal explanation. The answer to Leibniz’s classic question ‘’Why is there something rather than nothing?’’ is that every state of something is caused by a previous something. I suppose, then, that my problem is with the second premise.


Vale


References

[1]http://tinyurl.com...

[2] http://tinyurl.com...

[3]http://tinyurl.com...

[4] http://tinyurl.com...
KeytarHero

Con

I think I'm just going to forfeit the debate. I'm clearly out of my element here. The debate is getting too technical and frankly, I don't know how to respond appropriately to some of them. I'm not trained in physics, so I'd only be speaking as a layman trying to wiggle my way out of Pro's arguments. Rather than continue to try to speak to a topic I'm not very knowledgeable in, I'd rather just concede. If Pro wishes to debate something a little more philosophical, I'd be qualified to do so.
Debate Round No. 3
Sargon

Pro

Ave

I want to note that I'm not an expert on physics at all. I am a layman just as Con is. In fact, I'm just a fourteen year old kid, as noted by my profile.

I thank Con for debating this topic with me. I've always wanted to recreate 'Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology' in a sense. I enjoyed reading Con's rounds, and thought he did a good job.

As a formality, I extend all arguments. I also want to note the number of sources I used.

Vale
KeytarHero

Con

Again, I am officially conceding, so please vote for Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
lol.
if u want to check the diamond is original or fake u cant.
for that u need to go to the expert who deals in diamond.
Posted by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
Well, thank Allah for creating the universe in such a way that demonstrates he doesn't exist.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
big bang is also in QURAN.
ITS ALSO IN THEISM.
WE ARE THEISM.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"Also, if Anti-Atheist can refute Pro so hard, why not debate Pro on this? I'm sure you'll make a better opponent than I would on this topic."

Anti-Theist is a troll. I should have realized that when he said "divide the sum of physics" haha. He has no clue what he is talking about, pay him no mind.
Posted by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
I have an argument that's my own thoughts. It will be in article and video form soon.
Posted by KeytarHero 3 years ago
KeytarHero
Also, if Anti-Atheist can refute Pro so hard, why not debate Pro on this? I'm sure you'll make a better opponent than I would on this topic.
Posted by KeytarHero 3 years ago
KeytarHero
Rational, the two of us discussed this prior to starting the debate, and I told him that as I'm not well-versed in physics, I can't really get too technical with it. I could argue the philosophical implications but it was just getting too technical for me to reasonable argue against it without having some background in physics, myself.
Posted by KeytarHero 3 years ago
KeytarHero
Sargon, it may be that you're just a high schooler, but by quoting physicists I'm essentially having to argue against them, and not really against you (though you're arguing about the implications of it). :)
Posted by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
Con is not as interested or well versed in physics as Pro is, and so his discomfort was understandable. His preference to combat Pro on a more philosophical than scientific battleground could have served him well if he didn't give up. While he may not be as familiar with the issue as he likes, a quick Google search can take him to experts who are, and who share a similar position to the one he is trying to occupy. Take this article, for example:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...

I don't admire quitting as much as some of the other judges do, regardless of whether it is ff or concession. I thus choose to award conduct to Pro, in addition to argument and sources.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Smith says that the WFU is incompatible with Classical Theism, because if an omnipotent being willed our universe, the odds would be 100%, not 95%. The WFU contradicts God. Thus, the classical notion of God does not exist. Smith concedes however, that God could sustain a wave-function law, with the universe coming into being due to the wave-function law with a 95% probability, and not directly because of God (God would just sustain the law that allows it to happen). However, this means that God leaves it up to chance. This is certainly a bizarre view for the theist indeed, and is not the traditional view. Why would God make it so the universe with our constants only has a 95% chance of existing? One could easily run a calculation based on Bayes Theorem to show that, if the WFU obtains, the facts surrounding the WFU would be more likely under Atheism than Theism.

"An acausal version of nonclassical theism may include the proposition that God is responsible for instituting the laws that govern whatever universe exists, but that God does not create the universe. In the actual world, God wills that the wave function law obtains but does not will that the universe exist. Rather, God leaves it to chance, a 95% chance, that the universe with the specified metric and matter field will begin to exist uncaused.

It is important to emphasize that this version of theism, although consistent with Hawking's cosmology, is fundamentally at odds with central tenets of classical theism and is even more dissimilar to classical theism than is deism. It is central to classical theism and deism that God is the [sufficient] cause of the universe." - Quentin Smith
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by MisterDeku 3 years ago
MisterDeku
SargonKeytarHeroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
SargonKeytarHeroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Argument goes to Pro as Con conceded. Conduct to Pro because the "honor" of the concession is undone by bare assertions and unwarranted charges of equivocation, in addition to quitting. Sources for Pro were more numerous and relevant to the resolution. Expanded RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
SargonKeytarHeroTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession, not the same thing as a forfeit as reported in the forums (much easier to grade actually).
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
SargonKeytarHeroTied
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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments had little to do with Big Bang cosmology. Sargon argued that Friedman's equations entail a continuum of states, and the non-reality of a singularity at t=0. Thus, there can be no first state of the universe for God alone to cause. If we assume a quantum mechanical model, the WFU is heavily confirmed and entails the universe has a 95% chance of coming into being. If a God exists, it would be 100%. Also, he argued that simultaneous causation means that the universe can come into being without a personal cause. Keytarhero argued from Zeno's Paradox. Pro showed that with Supertasks, one can transverse an infinite series between two finite points coherently without any logical problems at all. Con charged that Pro equivocated with the word "nothing" pertaining to the simultaneous causation argument, but did not point our where Pro made the fallacy. Pro defended his case further in the next round, then Con forfeited. Sources to Pro. Conduct to Con for the honorable concession