For atheists, is the unverse infinately old or did it arise out of nothing?
Debate Rounds (5)
Not necessarily. There may have been some outside force, but an atheist argues that it was not an INTELLIGENT BEING. It may have been some force or energy, but not a conscious being that made the decision to "poof" the universe into existence.
"Thus, they are left with the universe being infinitely old or that it arose out of nothing."
Technically speaking, neither is true. The Big Bang theory assumes that before the "bang", the universe did not occupy any space. According to Einstein's theories, without space you cannot have time so there was no "before" the Big Bang as there was no time. Because of this, one cannot say that the universe is infinitely old. The Big Bang theory assumes that all matter was at one point, so something (universe) didn't arise from nothing because there was indeed something.
"...1st Law of Thermo says it could not have arisen out of nothing. Atheism must be wrong."
Alright, so then God created the universe. But then where did God come from? I could use this exact argument against the existence of a God because as you say, "1st Law of Thermo" says that something cannot arise from nothing.
As to paragraph 2, nonsense, one cannot have matter (i.e., the singularity) without space. And Einstein did not say one cannot have time without space. He demonstrated that they are related, not contingent. But then you reverse yourself and say that the singularity did not just come into existence from nothing, which means it is has always been here, contra the 2nd Law.
As to paragraph 3, God is not subject to the laws of the material universe, which makes your Q nonsensical as stated.
TheRussian forfeited this round.
I did not mean "force" as Newtons being exerted upon our universe by some matter, pardon me for the confusion. I meant "force" in a very general sense as some kind of driving mechanism for the universe's coming into being/expansion. As to energy not being outside the universe, the Multiverse Theory that indeed assumes that there is energy "outside of our universe". I can go into some of the evidence for the Multiverse Theory if my opponent would like me to do so.
"As to paragraph 2, nonsense, one cannot have matter (i.e., the singularity) without space."
Einstein's E=mc^2 shows that matter and energy are interchangeable. Matter can be created from energy, which doesn't necessarily "need space". According to the Big Bang Theory, the universe was at one point. A point does not have volume, so it cannot "take up space". But even then, the universe may have been in the form of energy rather than matter.
"And Einstein did not say one cannot have time without space. He demonstrated that they are related, not contingent."
Einstein said "Time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure it...Time is exactly the order of events: this is my conclusion". Without space there are no events, which by such a definition means there is no time.
"But then you reverse yourself and say that the singularity did not just come into existence from nothing, which means it is has always been here, contra the 2nd Law."
This sentence does not make sense because there was no "always". There was no "before" the Big Bang as time did not exist.
"As to paragraph 3, God is not subject to the laws of the material universe, which makes your Q nonsensical as stated."
This is a classic cop out, but I suppose there's no way to argue against it.
No, according to the BBT, all of the matter in the universe was condensed into a massively dense 3D object. Points do not exist, but are mathematic abstractions. But even if they did, they still occupy space, just space in a single dimension. And even if the universe is energy, you still have the same problem, for the laws of thermodynamics concerns matter AND energy exchanges. Your unscientific imaginations do not help you.
And you have admitted that the universe existed in space, though you state the unscientific nonsense that it is 1D space.
It is not a cop out. It is truth that negates your Q as a fallacious category error.
Indeed, I actually never stated that I am one in the first place.
"Indeed, since the universe is nothing more than the sum total of all reality, any other universes would still be part of the universe."
I suppose I have indeed pushed the question back. But assuming that our universe formed the way that the Multiverse Theory suggests, then we cannot make any further assumptions at all about the creation of the entire multiverse. We cannot truly argue about this subject because while you call my question about "what created God" nonsensical because he/she/it doesn't abide by our natural laws, we have no guarantee that our universe followed today's laws "before" the Big Bang as it seems that there was no time at all. I found another expert who found that "...before our universe there was nothing, nothing at all, not even time itself." It seems that by both, this expert and Einstein, THERE WAS NO TIME IN OUR UNIVERSE "before" the Big Bang. Stephen Hawking, in one of his lectures called "Beginning of Time" says that there was (as the name suggests) and definite beginning to time itself. This, once again, confirms that there WAS NO TIME before the Big Bang.
"No, according to the BBT, all of the matter in the universe was condensed into a massively dense 3D object."
I request a source for this claim.
"It is not a cop out. It is truth..."
Actually, neither of us knows whether it is truth or not.
It doesn't seem like there's really anything that necessitates a supernatural CONSCIOUS being to be involved with the creation of our universe.
Next, to abandon the necessity of a Creator as demanded by the laws of science, you have abandoned science and embraced mysticism and some fantasy land where the laws of science do not apply. No thanks. I will stick with science an its demand that we can only account for the existence of the universe through His agency.
I also never said that. Not once in this debate have I stated my beliefs in regards to God, please stop making assumptions. In the end, I don't really see why it matters whether or not I am genuinely an atheist, it doesn't change the weight of my arguments.
"...to abandon the necessity of a Creator as demanded by the laws of science, you have abandoned science and embraced mysticism and some fantasy land where the laws of science do not apply."
I am not sure what my opponent means by this. Thus far, science has never "necessitated" the existence of a God to explain any natural phenomenon. The "God" explanation for an occurrence only exists for as long as science hasn't figured out the actual reason (like the ancient people thought lightning and sea storms and volcanic eruptions were the actions of gods). As for the second part, it seems to me that the world of God would be one where laws of nature no longer apply as you even stated earlier in the debate.
I am disappointed that my opponent didn't provide a source the "According to BBT..." claim he made in Round 4 and as a result, I cannot trust this claim.
Thank you for the debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Kirigaya-Kazuto 8 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Ordinarily Conduct would go to Con due to Pro's FF however Con proceeded to call Pro a liar. Pro get's the sources as he actually used many sources that I've used in the past. Arguments also go to Pro as well as Con left an argument uncontested with claims of "truth" that aren't supported at all. Overall this debate definitely could have been better but good jobs to both sides overall. Con should in his next debates learn to use sources that are unbiased. Pro needs to set time aside for debates to avoid FF.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.