The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheRussian
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

For atheists, is the unverse infinately old or did it arise out of nothing?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
TheRussian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/19/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 425 times Debate No: 85199
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

ViceRegent

Con

Atheists cannot allow anything outside of the universe to cause it to come into existence. Thus, they are left with the universe being infinitely old or that it arose out of nothing. Either way, they believe contrary to science, for the 2nd Law of Thermo says the universe cannot be infinitely old and the 1st Law of Thermo says it could not have arisen out of nothing. Atheism must be wrong.
TheRussian

Pro

"Atheists cannot allow anything outside of the universe to cause it to come into existence."
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.
http://www.big-bang-theory.com...

"...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.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

As to paragraph 1, nonsense. Force, which presupposes the existence of matter, and energy would be part of the universe, not outside of it.

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.

Your turn.
TheRussian

Pro

TheRussian forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

There is nothing more to say.
TheRussian

Pro

"Force, which presupposes the existence of matter, and energy would be part of the universe, not outside of it."
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.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk...

"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.
http://www.alternativephysics.org...

"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.
http://phys.org...

"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.
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

Again, this "force" as you call it cannot be explained naturally, or it is part of the universe for the reason stated. If it is supernatural, you are not longer an atheist. BTW, the multiverse nonsense does not solve the problem, it compounds. It is like the atheist fools who accept that life could not have arisen naturally on earth from non-life, but instead of submitting to God invent the nonsense that aliens deposited life on earth, not realizing they have merely begged the question as to where the alien life originated from. Indeed, since the universe is nothing more than the sum total of all reality, any other universes would still be part of the universe. You have only pushed the question back.

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.
TheRussian

Pro

"If it is supernatural, you are not longer an atheist."
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.
http://discovermagazine.com...

"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.
Debate Round No. 4
ViceRegent

Con

Here is the problem: this debate was clearly for an atheist and you have said you are not one, which means you are a liar.

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.
TheRussian

Pro

"...this debate was clearly for an atheist and you have said you are not one, which means you are a liar."
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.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
TheRussian, no problem. See you soon.
Posted by TheRussian 1 year ago
TheRussian
I'm so sorry about the forfeit, I'll definitely post next round.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 1 year ago
Stonehe4rt
Yeah so I guess God made the universe because simply the universe cannot make itself. Nor could it do anything else but just exist without God. It would be stagnate and cold with nothing happening. So God would be the "Chicken" who made the universe (the Egg) Now that brings us down a deep thought. Just like any parent does God want us to become like him? He says multiple times to follow him, follow in his foot steps. They only way that is possible is to become Love itself I suppose.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 1 year ago
Stonehe4rt
Well the way this topic is styled cannot be answered correctly you see. It isnt possible for something to arise out of nothing according to all science and religion. So we know that is wrong, leaving it has been here infinitely which in a sense is correct, because logically speaking it would have to be created by God, and God is outside of time. This means that when time began, the universe began. So yes it existed forever because there wasn't anything made before it, there was just God. Some may ask why did God just get an idea to create us? Well why wouldnt he? He is God, so I guess he is bound to want to do something sometime? Throughout many verses God talks about "new". And from it we can see that God likes new, so I guess he made us because we would be new.

@ Jocko
I think you misunderstood me a lot... Lol no biggy I will clarify. I wasn't saying God was a rock, I was saying that from an Atheist point of view they believe a unintelligent object blew up and made everything. I was simply saying how much more logical it is for the creator to be a intelligent being that is omnipresent and omnipotent, whether he has a shape or not I have not the slightest clue, but he says we were made in his image, or shadow so we might resemble God?
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
What your perceive God to be has nothing to do with who He actually is.

See my comment about mental illness.
Posted by Jocko 1 year ago
Jocko
@ The Russian
aww good point did not even catch it while reading thank you for the clarification.

@ ViceRegent
I'm sorta confused through that whole comment so sorry if i misunderstand. I get what your saying about intelligence but i feel that though god wouldn't need a capacity for *copied *(logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, learning, emotional knowledge, memory, planning, creativity and problem solving) he would be all and everything which the view i was getting at because you have thought and the ability to decide with what you experience when you die you longer experience anything much like you didn't experience anything before birth that in itself God all and nothing, Exist and stop existing.

@ stonehe4rt
for religious people most follow a book so i would conclude then a rock is very well possible. The sun was thought as god once some still do i believe but i get what your saying. with the chicken and the egg I raise you schrodingers Cat lol no really many theories universe could have been created from its self which was universe created that's self ...etc....etc
Posted by Stonehe4rt 1 year ago
Stonehe4rt
Well firstly, even if you could state that something unintelligent created this universe from the outside (which isn't really possible unless it is something that doesn't follow our laws of physics) You still have to tell what made that thing that created this universe. You can't just say it always existed because then that's just being in denial of God. Let's say that unintelligent thing was a rock, you are saying you can believe a rock has always existed and somehow created everything that exist, but with the way everything in existence is so pinpoint wouldn't it be more logical to have a creator behind it?

It is a chicken or the egg debate. Did the product or the producer come first. Well in the chicken and egg situation, the chicken would have had to come first as an egg cannot survive without being guarded and warmed by the chicken. While a chicken can survive without the egg.
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
Jocko, you beg the question. Intelligence is not a human characteristic given to God, but a godly characteristic given to humans.

And omnipotence has to do with God's power, not knowledge.

And your view that reality is contingent on your experience of it is the worldview of the delusional or mentally ill. I am not trying to be insulting, but just saying it is the mentally ill that think they determine reality.
Posted by TheRussian 1 year ago
TheRussian
@Jocko, I agree, my word choice of "intelligent" may have been imprecise. I later used "conscious" and I think that's a better word to use.
Posted by Jocko 1 year ago
Jocko
@ The Russian
Firstly stating that I am for neither side but just commenting.

I am confused on the notion then why god would have a human characteristic such as Intelligence most religions I would assume would view God as Omnipotent thus would not have need or constrains of human characteristics or views of understanding such as time, good and or evil.

On the notion of universe it exists and doesn't exist because its experienced and once you no longer experience (die in terms of living body) it no longer exists. just a personal view :)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Kirigaya-Kazuto 1 year ago
Kirigaya-Kazuto
ViceRegentTheRussianTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
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.