The Instigator
MagicAintReal
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
retroz
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The Origin Of The Universe And Earthly Life Are Correctly Explained By The Bible

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: 9/25/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 816 times Debate No: 80065
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)

 

MagicAintReal

Con

*You are Pro
*I am Con
*No round rules

*NO ACCEPTANCE ROUND

Resolution
The origin of the universe and earthly life are correctly explained by the bible.

Pro
Has the Burden of Proof and 4 sets of 10,000 characters to support the resolution and refute Con.

Con
Has only 3 sets of 10,000 characters to refute Pro and reject the resolution.


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

Otherwise...

*Definitions below are agreed on by posting your first argument.


Definitions (from Google definitions)

origin - the point or place where something begins

universe - all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos

earthly - of or relating to the earth

life - the state or quality that distinguishes living beings or organisms from dead ones and from inorganic matter, characterized chiefly by metabolism, growth, and the ability to reproduce and respond to stimuli.

correctly - in a way that is true or factual

explained (changed in comments, so not a Google definition)- to tell or show the reason or cause of something

the bible - the Jewish/Christian scriptures, consisting of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.

May the better argument win.
retroz

Pro

First, I would like to thank my opponent for giving me the chance to debate this topic with him...

For this debate I will be proving that The Bible correctly explains the origin of the universe as well as earthly life.

I will be looking at several topics through out this debate, these include but or not limited to
Summa Theologicae- St. Thomas Aquinas
"The Genesis Code"
Abiogenesis

First, let me set this straight, after reading previous debates from my opponent Abiogenesis will probably become a huge part of this debate. But unlike the normal idea of 1:10^40,000 I will revise the Hoyle Calculation to 1:60000 due to the fact that only 3 amino acids that repeat are needed to make certain proteins that are needed for life on Earth. This number is instead of using 20 in the calculation using 3.

Summa Theologiae- a book by theologian St. Thomas Aquinas that states that science and the Bible do not contradict

"The Genesis Code" - A book and movie that offers an explanation of the creation of the universe

What I will be proving over these rounds is that the Abrahamic God created the universe using science. My argument will vastly differ from the childish idea that God is some magical creature... He merely manipulates science to complete his tasks. So I will be reading Genesis as metaphorical, not literal. Thus since, that God used science to create the universe and the Bible retells that story therefore, the Bible explains the creation story correctly.

On 7 day creation,
As anyone with a brain knows 7 day creation is kind of absurd, but what if God is on a different time frame from humanity? this would mean that it is possible for his 7 days to possibly mean 13 billion years.
This is a plausible idea, that if God were to exist he would either be on a different dimension or time frame than us. Biblically this is shown in 2 Peter 3 verse 8 which says "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." This is a metaphorical way for ancients to say the Lord's time is not our time... In fact, even science says time is relevant, this is called Time Dilation, Time dilation is defined as"a difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from a gravitational mass or masses." So what we can deduct is that God is not on "our time" per say.

On Adam and Eve,
Who came first? the world may never know... While we are all "inherently" women during conception and we become male when the Y chromosome is added, this may or may not be what happened during the creation of humans... There is no true way of knowing which came first Man or Woman, we can only guess.

On the order of creation
Science- Big Bang, Expansion, clusters, separation of galaxies, non-burning stars and planets and moons form, Stars begin to burn their fuel that they accumulated, Oceans form on Earth as well as an atmosphere, Land forms, plants form, animals form, humans form.
Bible- God created universe (covers first 5 steps), God said Let There be Light (covers the creations of the first electromagnetic waves AKA Light), God separates the oceans and the sky (oceans and atmosphere forms), God creates land, God creates chemo-synthetic plants (same day as land), God creates animals and places the stars in the sky (I will expand upon later), God creates the first humans.

Don't these two creation explanations/stories seem very similar to you the reader? People writing the Bible did not understand what the Big Bang was or what galaxy clusters or rapid expansion was, so they said "God created the universe" which is a very basic way of explaining the Big Bang from people who were very primitive.

On the Big Bang,
I support the Big Bang creation of the universe, in fact, I believe in it... However, I strongly believe that God created the Big Bang. As there is no way for Science to answer this question "Why did the Big Bang happen..." They may say "It had to..." But how can something that didn't exist, have to exist or create itself? or maybe they say this "Well eventually the matter got so massive it was forced to implode on itself and create the big bang." But the next question is where did that matter come from? They may also say "A previous universe collapsed on itself causing the Big Bang" but if that's true, than where did that universe come from? The truth is science in all it's knowledgeable glory does not have an answer to WHY or WHAT CAUSED the Big Bang to happen.

On the 1st day,
God used the Big Bang to create the universe

On the 2nd day,
God created what science knows as electromagnetic waves A.K.A light

On the 3rd day,
Most scientists agree that the first plants would have been "Chemo-synthetic" instead of "Photosynthetic" This means they use chemicals other than sunlight, water, and CO2 to make sugars... This would allow for plants to form on what would have been a very thick and chemically rich atmosphere and oceans.

On the 4th day,
While the Sun and other stars had already formed, many scientists theorize that our atmosphere would have been very thick and cloudy and most likely any organism that lived on the surface would not have been able to see the cosmos from Earth. Day 4 in modern terms would say, "and the atmosphere cleared and stars became visible"

On the 5th day,
God created the first animals, even neo-Darwinism, one of the most anti-Christian groups states that animals would have been created first... The animals that would have been created would have probably been sea creatures, which just happens to be what the Bible states was created first.

On the 6th day,
God created humans, this is very accurate, humans are ONE OF the youngest species on Earth, this makes this day plausible...

So to sum my constructive case, my argument follows Summa Theologica, that there is no contradiction between the Biblical story of creation and scientific version of creation, and that in fact God used science to create the universe.

This is to all that vote... I know that many of you have already taken sides on this... I urge you to put up your beliefs and read the arguments before voting.

Again, I would like to thank my opponent for this opportunity, I am open to listen to my opponent's argument and I cannot wait to read what my opponent says...
Debate Round No. 1
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks Pro for accepting this debate.

I reject the assertion that the bible correctly explains the origin of the universe and earthly life.

The writers of the bible failed to include cosmic microwave background radiation, quantum fluctuations, or the concept that the universe is expanding, so the bible's account of our universe's origins is inaccurate and incomplete.

The writers of the bible also failed to include the ideas of inorganic and organic compounds, metabolism and cell replication, or amino acids and genetics, so the bible's account of earthy life's origins lacks a substantial explanation.

Pro claims:
"The Abrahamic God created the universe using science...He merely manipulates science to complete his tasks."

My response:
Science is a collection of all of our observations and explanations of natural phenomena.
Science is not the phenomena themselves.
How did god use something that humans constructed post big bang to "create" the big bang?
According to Pro, it's a "childish idea that God is some magical creature," so how does god violate time constraints?

Also, time began at the big bang, and creation is a temporal concept that requires time.
How could an non-magical god create something without time?

Pro should also mechanistically explain, using the bible, HOW the particular Abrahamic god used science to complete tasks; Pro cannot just explain the science behind cosmological events, rather Pro needs to show how god caused them.

I understand the big bang and inflation, but HOW did god execute these concepts?
What in the bible indicates the mechanism god used?

Pro cites the quote from Peter that attempts to add time to the creation account (1 day = 1,000 years, 1,000 years = 1 day).
Pro claims "this is a metaphorical way for ancients to say the Lord's time is not our time."

My response:
If the lord's time is not our time, then how is god using temporal science, which is contingent on "our time?"

Pro cites the day = 1,000 years bible quote to support the idea that "it is possible for [god's] 7 days to possibly mean 13 billion years."
This should show why a metaphorical interpretation of the origins of our universe is incorrect and nonspecific.

Pro can metaphorically interpret:
1 god day = 1.9 billion years from a quote in the bible that claims 1 god day = 1,000 years.
With metaphorical interpretation, a day becomes an amount of years, and this type of ambiguity does not fulfill a correct explanation of the origins of our universe.

Pro brings up time dilation, which should be regarded as irrelevant, because time dilation is a concept of "our time."
Time dilation is not god's own non-magical time.

Pro posits:
"On Adam and Eve...Who came first? The world may never know."

My response:
The debate does not mention the origin of humans, males, or females, so "On Adam and Eve, who came first?" is an irrelevant question about the origin of earthly life.

Pro claims that the bible states:
"God [created] animals and [placed] the stars in the sky"

My response:
Next set of 10,000 characters, I will be outlining science's current understanding of the origin of the universe and earthly life, but it's commonly understood that science has animals' origin way after stars forming...there is no earth before stars either.
Why does the bible have it backwards if the bible correctly explains the origin of life?

Pro says that the writers of the bible accurately explain the big bang with "God created the universe."

My response:
Where in the bible did the writers mention a hot dense state that expanded from quantum fluctuations?
How does the phrase "God did it!" suffice for an explanation of something as complex as the big bang?

Also Pro mentioned that "People writing the Bible did not understand what the Big Bang was."

My response:
Why should we literally or metaphorically accept what ancient people wrote about a topic of which they were largely unaware?

So then Pro takes a shot at science, to which I take offense:
"The truth is science in all it's knowledgeable glory does not have an answer to WHY or WHAT CAUSED the Big Bang to happen."

My response:
False.
Understanding what nothing is (quantum fluctuations) and understanding that our universe has zero total energy, the "cause" of the big bang makes sense.

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 (nothing) eventually lead to the expression of energy, then matter can come from this unstable nothingness.

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 is flat.
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).

So this should show how the big bang occurred.

Pro goes over the 7 day creation account, to which I respond:
It's all metaphorical according to Pro, so the bible's explanation of something that is not metaphorical, the big bang, is incongruous.
Also, Pro is retrofitting science concepts into the bible.
If these interpretations and retrofitting are metaphorical, why should we regard them as correct?

On to you, Pro...
retroz

Pro

First, I would like to thank the Con for his truly interesting read and his very interesting rebuttals which are very intriguing and pretty convincing. I did not support my initial argument with many facts or explanations, I merely laid the foundations of what my argument would be on...

First, I would like to state that God has no time constraints, and it was a mistake on my part to discuss "time frames" (it appears to have confused me, my opponent, and most likely the readers) thus I concede that. But, at the same time I would like to mention that in that same paragraph I said "He would either be on a different dimension OR time frame than us" So, what I would like to say is that my original quote of 2 Peter 3 verse 8 is still valid due to the fact that God, if he were to live in a dimension that transcends time would still have a different "time frame" as relating to us. So, I update my original argument by saying that God lives in a different "dimension" as modern science would call it.

On my opponent's Quantum Fluctuation argument as an explanation for the Big Bang:
Now, if all events/objects must have an origin, than quantum fluctuations must have one, as well as the fact that sub-nuclear particles must have an origin. What is this origin of quantum fluctuations? Another question I have is if quantum fields generate sub-nuclear particles at random as Heisenburg"s uncertainty principle states it would, then should we not be having Big Bangs frequently? Would we not have multiple "Big Bangs"? Would we not have random sub-nuclear particles frequently annihilating one another? My opponent did say "I must stress here that quantum fluctuations are everywhere" So, where are they? Another question that arises "what is the minimum energy needed to cause a "Big Bang"?" Would sub-nuclear particles such as quarks colliding which causes energy no greater than 3500GeV (proton collisions can reach up to 7000GeV) been able to cause the formation of the universe? The answer is most likely not

On my opponent"s Quantum Fluctuation argument Cont.
Another reason that Quantum Fluctuations do not disprove the idea of God using science to create the universe is because while quantum fluctuations may be nothing, the universe itself is something. There must be a universe within which these quantum fluctuations can occur, There must also be a universe for sub-nuclear particles to exist. No universe, no quantum fluctuations. Thus, No sub-nuclear particles, no Big Bang

On my opponent's statement of "The writers of the bible failed to include cosmic microwave background radiation, quantum fluctuations, or the concept that the universe is expanding, so the bible's account of our universe's origins is inaccurate and incomplete. The writers of the bible also failed to include the ideas of inorganic and organic compounds, metabolism and cell replication, or amino acids and genetics, so the bible's account of earthy life's origins lacks a substantial explanation."

My response: Yes, the Bible did fail to include several details, but remember, Moses the writer of Genesis would not have understood the majority those terms, and many of the people nowadays don't understand them. Another thing, according to the definitions of the topic I do not need to prove that every piece of scientific evidence is in the Bible this is seen in our definitions of "correctly - in a way that is true or factual" and "explained (changed in comments, so not a Google definition)- to tell or show the reason or cause of something" So all I must do is prove that the Bible factually/truthfully show the reason/cause of the creation of life on Earth and the creation of the universe. I DO NOT need to prove that the Bible contains every detail of our current scientific data. This invalidates my opponents argument of lack of explanation and that the Bible "does not" fulfill the topic.

On my opponents statement of "but it's commonly understood that science has animals' origin way after stars forming...there is no earth before stars either. Why does the bible have it backwards if the bible correctly explains the origin of life?"

My response: This is true that stars formed well before animals, stars also formed well before the Earth, however I said this in my first section "While the Sun and other stars had already formed, many scientists theorize that our atmosphere would have been very thick and cloudy (due to volcanic activity)" making it appear that the stars just formed... Why would the atmosphere clear AFTER plants and not before? Look at Venus, no plants... no clear atmosphere. As well as the fact that chemosynthetic plants remove CO2 + 6H2O and creates sugar and oxygen, eventually clearing the atmosphere slowly, but surely. So, the Bible still correctly explains the origin of Earthly life in this example.

On my opponents statement of "Why should we literally or metaphorically accept what ancient people wrote about a topic of which they were largely unaware"

My response: Because it is correct, you don"t have to understand something for it to be correct" All throughout the history of science what you have is people who don"t understand something being correct about it. For example, Newton didn"t understand gravity when he first theorized about it. Another example is, Copernicus who was correct about heliocentrism when he really didn"t understand anything about it (he ended up only being half way correct" The sun is not the center of the universe, just the solar system).

On my opponent"s argument: "Pro should also mechanistically explain, using the bible, HOW the particular Abrahamic god used science to complete tasks; Pro cannot just explain the science behind cosmological events, rather Pro needs to show how god caused them. I understand the big bang and inflation, but HOW did god execute these concepts? What in the bible indicates the mechanism god used?"

My response: Again, I do not have to explain every detail" according to the definitions of the topic I do not need to prove that every piece of scientific evidence is in the Bible this is seen in our definitions of "correctly - in a way that is true or factual" and "explained (changed in comments, so not a Google definition)- to tell or show the reason or cause of something" So all I must do is prove that the Bible factually/truthfully show the reason/cause of the creation of life on Earth and the creation of the universe. I DO NOT need to prove that the Bible contains every detail of our current scientific data.

My counter argument:
"So all I must do is prove that the Bible factually/truthfully show the reason/cause of the creation of life on Earth and the creation of the universe. Me saying this is probably annoying by now, but that is the wonder of definitions in debate. For this piece and the next, I will further my original point by showing that the Bible truthfully shows the reason/cause of the creation of the universe and life on Earth. First, I would like to quote St. Thomas Aquinas on his 5 basic arguments for the existence of a God.
""1. We know that there is motion in the world; whatever is in motion is moved by another thing; this other thing also must be moved by something; to avoid an infinite regression, we must posit a "first mover," which is God.
"2. For example, a table is brought into being by a carpenter, who is caused by his parents. Again, we cannot go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause, which is God.
"3. All physical things, even mountains, boulders, and rivers, come into being and go out of existence, no matter how long they last. Therefore, since time is infinite, there must be some time at which none of these things existed. But if there were nothing at that point in time, how could there be anything at all now, since nothing cannot cause anything? Thus, there must always have been at least one necessary thing that is eternal, which is God.
"4. Objects in the world have differing degrees of qualities such as goodness. But speaking of more or less goodness makes sense only by comparison with what is the maximum goodness, which is God.
"5. Things in the world move toward goals, just as the arrow does not move toward its goal except by the archer's directing it. Thus, there must be an intelligent designer who directs all things to their goals, and this is God.

Next, I would like to show how a metaphorical interpretation can be correct" According to a study done by the University of Chicago Psychology department " [a] sentence may be literally true or false" as well as saying "interpreted metaphorically it [the same sentence] may also be true or false" But, how is the metaphorical interpretation of the Bible true? That is hard to prove, but what is much easier to do is prove that it is not false, which would make it true. How is the statement "God created the Universe" not false? Because, if we assume for a second that there is a God and since he is sovereign, then he must have created the universe" Even if we don"t assume that God exists, what can be seen is that quantum fluctuations (without God) do not accurately explain the creation of the universe (as seen earlier) nor does a random Big Bang event" So, the statement "God created the Universe" is not necessarily false, meaning that it must be true. Thus a metaphorical interpretation has the ability to be true in the context of the Bible.

How did God create the universe?
God created the universe through what we call the "Big Bang" event. Now there is no Biblical proof of this but there is also no Biblical proof against this idea. In Genesis all that it says is that "God created the universe". This idea of God creating a Big Bang, not only allows for a God to exist but also allows for a Big Bang to occur. Which is the most plausible explanation for the cause of the universe

I will expand upon the other great performances of God in my next round. Now I pass the debate back to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 2
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks Pro for your response and your compliment. This debate's been intriguing in general.

Pro improves his point:
"So, I update my original argument by saying that God lives in a different "dimension" as modern science would call it."

My response:
There is no experimental evidence for higher dimensions; they just would solve a mathematical conundrum in string theory.
String theory itself, I argue, is not a very well founded theory, and I reject it outright, because it fails to acknowledge that matter dictates the geometry of space.

From super string theory's official site:
"Spacetime can be neatly separated into space and time."
http://www.superstringtheory.com...

String theory asserts that there is a fixed space time, held together by unproven "strings" that are subject to "perturbations," which can cut the "strings" that hold space and time together; this is enough to reject it.

Higher dimensions are just a byproduct of the math involved in demonstrating string theory.
If there were 10 dimensions, then string theory's mathematical conundrums would be solved...whoopty doo.
Otherwise, there is no reason to believe that higher dimensions exist, or that the claims of string theory have been demonstrated.

So if Pro claims that god is in some other dimension that is not constrained by time, I'll ask Pro:
Can you demonstrate the existence of this higher dimension?

If yes, you should let the string theorists know about it...and you should use it to meet your burden of proof that the bible explains this higher dimension, and that this particular explanation of reality is correct and necessary for the origins of the universe and the origins of earthly life.

Also, Pro thinks it's a "childish idea that God is some magical creature."
Pro, is it magical for a being to have no time constraints?
Sounds magical to me.

One can guess my view on magic from my name.

On to quantum fluctuations...

Pro posits:
"What is this origin of quantum fluctuations?"

My response:
Quantum fluctuations don't have an origin, because when there is nothing, which is the absence of something, there are always quantum fluctuations.
Nothing has properties to it, and I'm telling you right now, there is no nothing state without quantum fluctuations.
Since quantum fluctuations are always there fluctuating, they've not originated; they've fluctuated always.

If your version of nothing does not include quantum fluctuations, your version of nothing doesn't ever exist.

Also, unlike higher dimensions, we have detected quantum fluctuations and have experimental evidence for them.
http://physics.aps.org...

Pro also posits:
"Should we not be having Big Bangs frequently? Would we not have multiple "Big Bangs"? Would we not have random sub-nuclear particles frequently annihilating one another? My opponent did say "I must stress here that quantum fluctuations are everywhere" So, where are they?"

My response:
They are happening all around you, and the source I have provided demonstrates quantum fluctuations' effect on larger than atomic mechanical systems; their ubiquitous existence is demonstrable.
http://physics.aps.org...

Now Pro's question about multiple big bangs is actually relevant.

But first, let me recap our universe's big bang.
Remember, our universe is a zero energy universe because all of the (+) matter is exactly cancelled out by all of the (-) gravity.
I use a set [+matter,-gravity] = 0 to represent the universe's total energy remaining zero.

At no matter or gravity [+0,-0] quantum fluctuations, there is no matter/energy/gravity/time/space.
Instead, as the sub nuclear particles fluctuate, so do space and time; there is no universe at [+0,-0], because there is no matter or space.
This nothing state is unstable because there is no stative space time; space and time exist only as long as the fluctuating sub nuclear particles and forces.
This instability at [+0,-0] expresses matter and gravity [+1,-1] and this is the big bang.

Not until we have some matter and gravity [+1,-1] is there any stative space time.

So why don't we see big bangs occurring all over?
Because currently in our universe, we have space and matter, so space is no longer a fluctuating variable that leads to instability in quantum fluctuations. However, I must stress that quantum fluctuations remain.

To respond to Pro's question "Would we not have multiple Big Bangs?"
In our universe? No.
However, because quantum fluctuations are always ubiquitous in nothing, if nothing exists outside of our universe, then, outside of our universe, multiple big bangs are plausible.

I will admit though, that there is no experimental evidence for multiple universes, but the ubiquity of quantum fluctuations allows for such.

Pro asserts:
"There must also be a universe for sub-nuclear particles to exist. No universe, no quantum fluctuations. Thus, No sub-nuclear particles, no Big Bang."

My response:
Nope. Pro has it backwards.
There must be sub nuclear particles for a universe to exist. No quantum fluctuations, no universe.

I also want readers to understand that matter dictates space; space is only the position of matter or the distance between matter.
No matter, no space.
So, quantum fluctuations need no space to fluctuate, rather when there was no space, space fluctuated with the sub nuclear particles.

Pro continues:
"So all I must do is prove that the Bible factually/truthfully show the reason/cause of the creation of life on Earth and the creation of the universe. I DO NOT need to prove that the Bible contains every detail of our current scientific data."

My response:
Yeah, that's how I figured it would be, before the debate started, but...
I'm not the one claiming that the biblical god manipulated science to create our universe and earthly life.
If that is Pro's claim, then yes, Pro has to prove that the bible contains correct explanations which, to be correct, require great scientific detail.

On the creation account, Pro had said:
"God creates animals and places the stars in the sky."

Pro then explained that this means:
"our atmosphere would have been very thick and cloudy (due to volcanic activity)" making it appear that the stars just formed."

My response:
This is the problem with Pro's metaphorical interpretations.
To me, "places the stars in the sky" is a specific action that indicates nothing about a thick atmosphere.

Pro continues:
"Why would the atmosphere clear AFTER plants and not before?"

My response:
If the thick atmosphere was carbon dioxide, like Venus's atmosphere, well, plants absorb carbon dioxide. So this shows how the atmosphere could clear after plants.

If it is the case that the bible says god created animals and then put all the stars in the firmament, then this is incorrect.
No stars, no earth, no animals.
This indicates a bible that does not correctly explain the origins of life.

I asked Pro why we should accept what ancient people wrote about the universe, a topic of which they were largely unaware.

So Pro mentions:
"You don"t have to understand something for it to be correct"

My response:
Yeah, but you do have to understand something for it to be EXPLAINED.
If the bible correctly explains the origins of the universe and life, then the explanations--not the concepts themselves--need to be correct; there is no explanation without understanding.

So Pro, does the bible explain how god created the universe?

"God created the universe through what we call the "Big Bang" event. Now there is no Biblical proof of this."-Pro

My response:
I agree.
retroz

Pro

retroz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
MagicAintReal

Con

Extend.
It does kinda seem like Pro conceded that the bible doesn't correctly explain the origins of the universe.
Either way, I have made no round rules for this debate, so Pro can respond whenevs.
retroz

Pro

retroz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MizzEnigma 1 year ago
MizzEnigma
I've heard people describe God as order, which helped make the universe as it is, and that order also helped create the Big Bang... wasn't sure if that was sort of your belief, or if it was an actual humanistic (of the look *created humans in His/Her image*) belief.
Posted by MizzEnigma 1 year ago
MizzEnigma
I was curious as to what your answer would be, so I asked.

@retroz
Posted by retroz 1 year ago
retroz
MizzEnigma trying to trip me up here... I really hate when people who aren't debating attempt to help one side or the other in the comments section.

This may be outside of the realm of understanding or science, but God has always been and always will be. This is on of the main beliefs of Judaism and Christianity. Since he is the only creator therefore, he cannot have a creator so, nothing created God
Posted by OnlineMissionary197 1 year ago
OnlineMissionary197
I am all for God creating the Universe. I want to help support retoz argument, but I do want to point out that retroz's explanation of creations is incorrect. Genesis does not say anything about using the Bid Bang Theory, or the evolution over Millions to Billions of years. There is nothing Christian, about Christian Science. The Bible does explain that creation was through a literal 24 hour period of a day to our definition of a week(seven 24 hour days). You need to be careful when fighting on the evolutionist ground. You are most likely to lose this battle if you cannot explain creation in proper Biblical Scripture. Now I'm not here to diss you off, I would love to help, but I can't agree with your explanation. But I do agree that the Bible accurately explains the Origin of the Universe.
Posted by MizzEnigma 1 year ago
MizzEnigma
What created God?
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
How about now?
Posted by retroz 1 year ago
retroz
Everything else looks good... However, your debate settings are not allowing me to join due to the fact I am under the minimum age requirement.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
We're keeping the definition "correctly" though right?
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Ok I resent the debate, is it cool now?
Posted by retroz 1 year ago
retroz
The Bible doesn't really explain anything the way you have defined explain, nothing is truly "clear" due to the fact that the Bible has a lot of metaphors in it...

So, I would like the definition of explain to be "to tell or show the reason or cause of something"
No votes have been placed for this debate.