The Instigator
MBill
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
John_C_1812
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Beginning of the Universe Implies that God Exists

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 723 times Debate No: 101572
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

MBill

Pro

The Cosmological Argument is perhaps the strongest of the arguments for God"s existence. Its premises enjoy both philosophical and scientific backing, and its conclusion is certain. If this argument works, then it is logically impossible that God doesn"t exist. This is very strong language, and it is meant to be.

As an example, it is logically impossible that a square circle exists. What is meant by "square" and "circle" are mutually exclusive things, and so there is no sense in which a "square circle" can exist. If this argument works, then the non-existence of God is as impossible as the existence of a square circle.

So let"s look at the argument:
- Premise One: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
- Premise Two: The universe began to exist.
- Premise Three: Therefore the universe has a cause.

Premise One: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. This premise is hard to argue with. It is common sense that something can"t come from nothing. If something could come from nothing, then why not anything? Why can"t just anything pop into existence for no reason? Why not a python in your pantry or a bobcat in your bedroom? Sometimes people will appeal to quantum mechanics, but this is a mistake in understanding. Quantum mechanics might say that subatomic particles pop into existence out of a vacuum of energy over time, but this isn"t the same as saying out of nothing and without cause. The fact that it is only subatomic particles and not submarines or subway sandwiches shows that there is some sort of a cause and effect process going on. Also, the starting point isn"t nothing. You"ve got space, energy, and time as your starting materials. It doesn"t seem rational to believe that something can come from nothing.

Premise Two: The universe began to exist. There is quite a lot of evidence for this. First, the beginning of the universe is predicted by general relativity. Scientists call it the "Big Bang". There are other evidences as well in the form of cosmic background radiation, the red shift discovered by Hubble, and the second law of thermodynamics. Second, we can see logically that time had to have had a beginning. If time had no beginning, then it would stretch backwards for infinity. This would mean that there would be points in time infinitely far in the past from which an infinite amount of time would need to be crossed for it to become now. Since you"d never run out of this infinite time, it could never become now. But it is now! For that reason time had to have had a beginning. Let me sketch out the train of thought:

- Premise One: If time stretched backward for infinity, then there would be points in time infinitely far in the past.
- Premise Two: If there are points in time infinitely far in the past, then time could never progress from those points to now.
- Premise Three: If time could never progress from a point in the past to now, then it cannot be now.
- Premise Four: It is now!
- Premise Five: Therefore time can progress from every point in the past to now.
- Premise Six: Therefore there are no points infinitely far in the past.
- Premise Seven: Therefore time does not stretch backward for infinity.

For these reasons, the reasonable person should conclude that the universe began to exist.

Premise Three: Therefore the universe has a cause. You might ask, wait a tick, what does any of this have to do with God? We can conclude a few things about this first cause from the things that were created. Since this first cause created time, matter, space, and energy then it cannot be made up of matter or energy, it cannot occupy space, and it cannot be bound within time. It must be timeless and immaterial.

We also have reason to think that it is personal. If the first cause was impersonal, then it would be something like a rock or a star. Some group of particles that churns out universes whenever the sufficient conditions are met. Much like gasoline will catch fire whenever you have a flame and oxygen near it. It doesn"t decide to burst into flame because it doesn"t decide to do anything, it is impersonal. If the sufficient conditions (gas + flame + oxygen) are present, then the flame happens automatically.

Now remember that the cause of the universe had to create time. This means that apart from creating time it existed in a timeless state, nothing changing. If nothing was changing, however, then the sufficient conditions for universe creation couldn"t come about over time. It couldn"t have gradually gotten to the point that a universe would be created because there was no such thing as "gradually" in this state of affairs. Everything that existed had existed timelessly for eternity. If the sufficient conditions existed from eternity past and the cause is impersonal, then it would have created the universe from eternity past. This means we would encounter a universe that was eternally old. We don"t experience a universe that is eternally old, however, which gives us good reason to believe that the cause is personal. Let me sketch out the train of thought again:

- Premise One: If the first cause was impersonal, then it would create the universe whenever the right conditions were met.
- Premise Two: If time was created with the big bang, then the right conditions would have been met timelessly apart from the big bang.
- Premise Three: If the right conditions existed timelessly apart from the big bang, then the right conditions would have been met from eternity past.
- Premise Four: Therefore if the first cause was impersonal, then it would have created the universe from eternity past.
- Premise Five: The universe was not created from eternity past.
- Premise Six: Therefore the first cause is not impersonal.

("Eternity Past" may be a confusing term here, I just mean to say that it"s effect would exist eternally. The point of the argument is that the universe would be eternal if the cause is impersonal, not that it would be a specific age, the age of "eternity past")

Taken together, this line of reasoning shows that a timeless, immaterial, personal creator of the universe exists. If it is logically impossible that something comes from nothing then it is logically impossible that the creator doesn"t exist.
John_C_1812

Con

In accepting this challenge my first step appears to be identifying the logic for Pro in a square circle. Though the circle and square are two dimensional images, and unique. The addition of square has multiple meanings and is not dictated. A square that is square, and a circle that is square, symbolize a common principle, characteristic, column is one premise that might describe a square circle into three detentions, square. Premise two is that all circles can be describe with a second geometric terminology annulus. This means resembling a ring with no mathematical structure of consistency, relaxed in formation, not square. If this can be demonstrated then square to is achievable through specification.

Addressing GOD in relationship to this debate. There is literature which suggests GOD is an axiom "One Nation Under Principle (a guide to the common defence.) Plus there are a number of religious literature, the Bible, Torah, Gandharan Buddhist test, and Qur"an are all in fact written text reasonably suggesting strong evidence to base an argument only on the existence of God as fact. The curve that will be provided by Con to Pro, the Universe does not imply that God exist, God exist in fact because time and space are absolute and neither are created or destroyed and openly violating the law of relativity.

It is beyond me to provide all the answers in this debate. The basic idea here will be to expose two absolutes for what they are, Time and Space. They are around us, they are here without any rational logic to support them, and even with us they still rest outside of relativity in full view of us all.

Premise one: Time does not move it is motionless and void of all known expression of energy.

Premise Two: Space as the absence of matter between all objects in the Universe, the one substance that shares one basic principle of time. It does not move.

Cites
https://www.merriam-webster.com...
https://www.amazon.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://www.lds.org...
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.thesaurus.com...

The argument of debate defined:
The glass is neither half full, nor half empty. It is always full whether transparent or opaque.
Debate Round No. 1
MBill

Pro

It seems as though my opponent"s first move is to attack the example that I used in my opening. The example was merely meant to give an illustration for why something that is logically impossible cannot exist or cannot have been a state of affairs. He seems to be saying that you can define "square" and "circle" broadly enough that they are no longer mutually exclusive. This somewhat misses the point, since I was not making a point about "square circles" but about logical impossibility. In order to improve the illustration, we"ll let "square" mean "that which cannot be a circle" and "circle" to mean "that which cannot be a square." On these definitions it is easy to see why a "square circle" is logically impossible. This is an illustration of why God must exist if it is logically impossible that the universe exist without him. If you don"t like the "square circle" example, that"s fine, the point I am making is about logical impossibility.

My opponent also seems to be confused in what I mean by the word "God". The argument that I presented makes the case for an immaterial, space-less, timeless, personal creator of the universe. This is the entity to which I am referring with the word "God".

My opponent"s main critique of my actual argument is to assert that "time does not move". This seems to be a reference to the tense-less theory of time. If this theory is true, then time doesn"t really move forward. If time doesn"t move forward, then nothing begins to exist at all (and therefore the universe never began to exist). Time would stretch out like a ruler, with each point on the ruler existing equally. The ruler wouldn"t begin to exist at the first inch, it would all just exist in time.

Fortunately he has given us no reason to think he is right in this matter. He merely asserts that time does not move in contradiction to our everyday experience. If he can give us no reason to think that this theory of time is true, then we have no reason to take his assertion seriously.

It is important to point out that his theory of time is a radical one that flies in the face of our common sense experience. On this view cause and effect are not real. Let that sink in a moment. Nothing has any causal relationship with anything else. The "effect" exists further down the timeline in just as real of a way as the "cause". Think of the radical implications of this view of time. It isn"t the case that you worked hard and earned your paycheck because it was true that your paycheck was yours before you ever worked at all. Are we really going to say that the sun"s rays are not the cause of the sunburn you might get at the beach? Are we really going to say that the explosion of gunpowder in a bullet casing is not causing the bullet to fire out of the gun? Are we really going to say that the rotation of the earth is not causing the sun to come into view?

Think about the impact that this view would have on moral accountability. The criminal who is on trial is not the same person as the criminal who committed the crime. They are not connected causally.

It seems obvious from our experience that the progress of time is real, if nothing else then by virtue of our real experience of cause and effect.

Now suppose my opponent were to tell you that cause and effect are still real on his view of time. If that is the case, then cause and effect still apply to the universe and he has not successfully evaded the argument.

If my opponent is going to win in this way, then he would need to give us some good reason to think that the progress of time is illusory and his explanation would need to be more obviously true to us than our own common sense experience.

Now I want you to keep in mind, my opponent didn"t make any move to deny the truth of premise one, "Whatever begins to exist has a cause." He instead attacked premise two, "The universe began to exist" by saying that nothing begins to exist. He also said nothing to cast into doubt that such a cause must be immaterial, space-less, timeless, and personal. So in light of what has been presented to this point, everything will hinge on whether or not you think the progress of time is real. If the progress of time is real, then God exists.
John_C_1812

Con

(Con States)

Con"s clarification of Pro"s point of relationships of two dimensional objects was to establish that the logic used was irrational and not rational logic. A fixed system is not truly rational because it relies on elimination of all possible points of view/reason to assert a fix group, which may simple be obvious as fact. Saying. Look here! See only one kind of circle. Look here! See only one type of square. We are right together. This is so easy.

There is no attack being made on any examples, No! Only locked doors being opened with a key. The key in the form of information, so that examples is only shared equally among debaters. A belief was being described by Pro to instill a set of ideologies to build on, not a wall of limit. Pro has not yet understood how Con used this argument. Time is standing still. When an "immaterial, space-less, timeless, personal creation of the universe," is. Then a material, space, volume set by time shared, creation of occupied space must first be canvas. Canvas is space. It must be placed first in a motionless time and empty container. It is the Ace card placed under the sleeve which must work its way back into the deck of cards unnoticed by all from the payer"s sleeve to the dealer"s deck, in our reasoning of God.

The Big Bang! "BA-BA-BA-BA-BANG! Where was the Big Bang? The Big Bang was located at the center of all matter in the known Universe, it was not at the center of all open canvas, known as space lacking matter in an infinite void. Time stands still, we age like fiction just taking a toll on our body parts, mass equals friction created by moving in time, untrue? Decay. Einstein got it wrong Special Relativity is a presumption made on the objects of motion. Moving as they are linked to time and space at consistent speed. It is not my goal in this debate to establish as fact that time is anything more than a historic object, an event incapable to being measure in some form of hidden motion, like the theory of special relativity. We use the Sun, no secret. Up front.

Con like Pro lives in a world of time, time zones, leap year, and the international timeline set by belief it has motion. "What is Greenwich Mean Time? Greenwich Mean Time or GMT is the clock time at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich London. When the sun is at its highest point exactly above the Prime Meridian, it is 1200 noon at Greenwich. GMT is still widely used as the standard time against which all the other time zones in the world are referenced. It is the same all year round and is not affected by summer Time or Daylight Saving Time. None of this substantiates time is by fact moving. None of it. It is saying that the sun and earth are moving by fact.

There is background radiation. Radiation which is said to be from before the Big Bang"s radiation that has been floating in time and space existing as matter simple left as unmeasured, Now said to be from before the creation of universe. Time and space are not the same thing but by theory of relativity can be traveling together, equal, stereo at the same time. Meaning time is measured in side space with measuring device, yet each may not be measured using the same presentable scale. A Liter, a Gallon, A yard, a Meter. A Pound, a Kilo. Clock.

( Pro States)
"Impersonal not existing as a person, having no personality."

(Con States)
There is a conundrum here in our debate. Pro believes that the first measurement is implication that God exists. Con agrees, Con can agree with Pro, no harm no fowl, the first measurement made is a great implication of a God that exists. So our debate is built over a shared argument that can be reasonably redirected to one side, the other side, or both sides. God was in place before the measuring took place. The yard is on the ground before the football stadium is built, the mile is set alongside the road side before it is paved, or planned out. Time was there before space was space? Yes; Time is built to tell space between spaces? Yes; neither needed more or less than the other, thus! One must be translated into motion, into Energy. Debates are not won they are owned. Once owned they are then shared. Pro and Con are competing to own this debate, so it can be shared, its outcome will spread to others. Are names become specs and the idea arrowed the debate grows.

Magnetic degeneration is not Gravitation. Energy degeneration is not time. Any removal of energy in form of matter, from space in form of lack thereof is an evacuation only. Relativity only dictates that the basic cause/principle of evacuation need must be greater than purpose of contained energy in space.

( Pro States)
"My opponent also seems to be confused in what I meant by the word "God." The argument that I presented makes the case for an immaterial. Space-less, timeless, personal creator of the universe. Thus is the entity which I am referring with the word "God."

(Con States)

Pro has expressed the set definition God, the goal which needs to be explained, and Con makes all presumption of God as being debated at once. Not as immaterial, simply as hostile material effect, fact described only, to insure a common level of safety. Again, but rephrased. Is the glass half full or half empty? The glass offered is never empty, and by all fact, the glass is always filled and simply lacks a capability by the provider to meet a complete purpose of the user. (Pro"s Premise One.) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.( Con ) Time does not move there for any cause is then in simplest explanation placement of any start. Multiple starts do not defy a law of physics. Thus; are not sufficient to signify the first beginning. Both Pro and Con move into the last Round left to explain the rational idea of beginning without start. There are multiple times because there are multiple ways to which it may be measured. Not because there are multiple demotions that time resides.( Con ) Time does not move. Empty Space is questionable and presumed still or motionless.

Cite
http://www.space.com...
https://www.thoughtco.com...
https://greenwichmeantime.com...
https://www.google.com...;*
https://science.nasa.gov...
http://www.factmonster.com...
Debate Round No. 2
MBill

Pro

I must confess that I'm having a little difficulty parsing my opponents arguments from the statements that he is making.

That being said, there seem to be two lines of argument that he is describing. First is what is called the B-theory of time. This is the theory that temporal duration is illusory. All points on the timeline exist equally and time doesn't really move from point A to point B to point C and so on. As I pointed out in my previous comments, my opponent has given us no reason to think that this theory is true and it flies in the face of our common sense experience of the world. Since my opponent merely asserts the theory again without providing more evidence, there isn't much more that I can say about it. You will need to decide which you find more persuasive, my opponents assertion that temporal duration is illusory or your own experience of time.

He also seems to reify "nothing" into "something". He describes the state of affairs from with the universe came as "space lacking matter", an "infinite void", an "empty container", and "radiation". But these are not *nothing*. Nothing is a term of universal negation, meaning not anything. It is nonsense to try and come up with some sort of physical description of "nothing". Imagine if your doorbell rang and you went to answer it only to find no one there. When you got back your spouse might ask, "Who was it?" If you were to answer, "No one," then it would be nonsense for your spouse to reply, "Well what did they want?" In the same way, once we understand that the universe came from nothing, it is nonsense to ask, "Well what is the physical description of nothing?"

As I have said before, out of nothing, nothing comes. It is irrational to deny this since "nothing" has no powers, no properties, no potentialities. Even so, we are faced scientifically to face the prospect of a beginning from nothing. In 2003 Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin proved that *any* universe that has been, on average, expanding throughout its history cannot stretch eternally into the past. Vilenkin wrote: "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."[1]

As I have contended in this debate. Whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, and therefore the universe has a cause. This cause must transcend the things it creates, and therefore this cause must transcend space, time, matter, and energy. I have also given an argument for why this cause must be personal. For if this cause were impersonal, then we would expect to encounter an eternally old universe. This personal cause that transcends space, matter, time, and energy is what we are referring to when we use the word "God".

Many thanks to you for reading this debate, and to my opponent for his time.

[1] Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), 176
John_C_1812

Con

( Con States )
By now we must only understand that the glass has had a limit imposed, a limit set by the level of portion placed by a host provider in the container being shared. The person did not ask for this base for measurement, they did not chose the portion to be placed inside, or provided. No one said, "Give me a half glass of water, please. Can you fill this glass half way with two things equally"?

Con is placing an understanding that beginnings, and empty nothing, share a common principle as a canvas, a table top, and a background on which something takes place. A debate can be shape around the probability that empty nothing is a substance of volume, a quantity amount making it something. In our debate it is the canvas of the back drop of all creation, beginning gives only nothingness of space cause, begging must be placed on the nothingness of empty to hide the large amount of empty. We simply are not receiving that from any science. The blank canvas beginning. The perpetual ever new discovery of simply finding a new beginning is what we get when using the universe as example. It"s so far way.

Look Here! Look at our clock, not so far way, it is our valuable record of time, we hold so dear. The energy of it as a past, present and distant state. We know and love as time, is continually started, the reset button is hit every day, every four years, by making an adjustment. All that is suggested in all this writing of both Pro and Con is in effort to move direction for the Universe out there beyond the sky, to something local, right here on earth, something we walk bare-foot in, something with which we all have experience with, time. Do not be late, cast a vote on sufficiently based idea, thought easily achievable to share as a living experience, based on simple fact, the clock. Time does not move in a circle, we are interpreting motion by a necessity, and the necessity has always forced us to be for ever so slightly wrong. This is why we are to believe of an implied God, the evidence is here, the evidence has always been here, right here. For any existence to be implied to God. Not light years away.

(Pro States)

Indirectly that it is heaven that holds the key.
The answer is based on far way information that of time, distance and energy, the magic word, beginning. It is the Universe that holds the only key for God"s complex existence.

(Con States)

No, the answer it is not hidden in something massive size container. The answer is something much easier and less complicated, and is placed within something that is in really less widespread then mathematically proved by humanity. The measurement of Time. Time gives us reason enough to the existence, here close to Earth. Right in front of us all. "No Pro," Time has multiple beginnings and yet it does not always have cause to transcend space.

Have you seen the cost of some of the telescopes! I thought the price on some of the watches were ridicules?
I would like to thank MBill taking argument as Pro for the debate topic and those who have taken the time to make comments. "It is not my time. Time cannot be given and does not move, so like many people I simple continue to walk around it."
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by factandevidence1234 1 week ago
factandevidence1234
How would you know unless you were there at the beginning of the universe
Posted by MBill 1 year ago
MBill
Thank you as well!
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
Thank you for the debate. If it matters I feel you had made the better argument as I didn't explain the basic idea that the beginning of time is a better or if not same implication to GOD.
Again thank you for the debate.
Posted by MBill 1 year ago
MBill
Epicemmy9, good question but I think it may be a bit off base. The Big Bang describes the fact of the beginning of the universe, but it isn't the cause of the universe's beginning. Saying that the Big Bang created the universe is a bit like saying that the sudden and rapid combustion and expansion from a stick of dynamite caused it to explode.

I've heard the argument I am laying out in this debate simply put this way, "A Big Bang needs a Big Banger!"
Posted by epicemmy9 1 year ago
epicemmy9
I've never understood why people think it's more likely that a "god" created the world rather than the Big Bang. There is far more evidence for the Big Bang Theory, such as the Red Shift and cosmic background radiation. Someone give scientific proof that a woman was created out of a man's rib.
Posted by debater12332 1 year ago
debater12332
I look forward to seeing how this debate turns out. I've never seen a good defense for how the universe could have began without God.
No votes have been placed for this debate.