The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Inspired
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Universe Can Be Explained Naturally Without God

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 2 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,613 times Debate No: 40358
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (2)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Introduction

I am going to be arguing that the beginning of the universe can be explained by aspects of nature, without referencing God, or plugging him into the equation with regards to an exlanation. This doesn't mean I have to prove the explanation is true, just that I must provide a natural explanation that explains the universe without any problems, and without assuming God exists.

Definitons

God

The factually necessary sentient being that the universe is contingent upon

Universe

The entirety of energy, space, and time that leads back to roughly 13.7 billion years ago (when our universe began); excluding any previous (whether temporal or non-temoral) state "prior" to "The Big Bang"

Rules

First round is for acceptance.
Inspired

Pro

I accept your debate parameters. Just to be clear, I cannot use God as an explanation either? Or is the whole point to prove that God exists? in which case I can't prove that God exists, that is a matter of faith. I include my main points below.

- The age of the earth as observed through science
- The Big Bang Theory is illogical as a scientific explanation of the origin of life.
- The concepts of time, space, order, and reality
- The difference between religion and spirituality

Thanks for the debate. I look forward to it. Just a heads up, I may not reply until sometime tomorrow night because I am extremely busy tomorrow.
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Clarifications

For the sake of debate, we will assume that God could hypothetically be used an explanation for the beginning of the universe. I will only be arguing that there is anothe explanation that does not reference God, and doesn't seem to require him to exist (I don't have to argue that this explanation is the true explanation). Thus, I would be showing that it is not really required to posit God as the explanation of the universe (even though it is prima facie conceivable that he may be). Con has to give us good reasons to doubt my claim that we can explain the beginning of the universe without God.

Con claims that a point he will be making is:

"The Big Bang Theory is illogical as a scientific explanation of the origin of life."- Pro

The above is problematic as The Big Bang theory is the scientific explanation that describes the evolution of the universe, it is not a scientific explanation of life; the best candidate for that is Abiogenesis[1]. As a theory that describes the evolution of the universe, The Big Bang Theory is a very well established scientific theory, which has made predictions which have been confirmed by testing[2].

Either way, Con has to accept that the Big Bang happened in the context of this debate. The very definition of "universe" in this debate includes the notion that The Big Bang was a reality. If Con, for some reason, doesn't like that then he should not have accepted this debate.

Explanation Of The Beginning Of The Universe Without Reference To God

One way the beginning of the universe could have happened was proposed by well respected physicist Alexander Vilenkin. He posits that through a spontaneous quantum tunnelling process; space, time, and energy could have emerged from a timeless and spaceless background describable by the laws of nature[3]. He describes the universe emerging from a quantum tunneling event (without an initial cause) with a finite size (a = H-1) and with a zero rate of expansion or contraction (da/dt = 0)[4]. The universe could have emerged in a symmetric vacuum state which then decayed with the inflationary era beginning; and after this era was finished, the universe would evolve according to the standard Big Bang Theory. Space-time and energy would emerge out of a void with no space or time. This means that there is no infinite regress of "time befores" implied by the model, and no initial cause is needed:

"As a result of the tunnelling event, a finite-sized universe, filled with a false vacuum, pops out of nowhere ("nucleates") and immediately starts to inflate...What could have caused the tunnelling? Remarkably, the answer is that no cause is required." - Professor of Physics, Alexander Vilenkin[5]

By "cause" Vilenkin simply means a sufficient cause. The timeless and spaceless background would of course serve as an unstable necessary condition for the spontaneous nucleation event. If one simply views a necessary condition (without a sufficient condition) as a "cause", then the universe would still be caused under this scenario. So, there is a scientific model entailing quantum tunnelling which explains the beginning of the universe.

Possible Objection 1

One might claim that a state of affairs describable by the laws of nature implies the universe. That would mean that it would be illogical to suppose that the contingent universe could be explained naturally (that would suppose a state of affairs describable by the laws of nature without the universe, which is absurd, right?). However, this type of thinking is a grave mistake, and scientists believe that the laws of nature are not dependent on space, time, or energy at all.

“The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe.” – Alexander Vilenkin[6]

“Once you apply the laws of quantum mechanics to gravity itself, then space itself becomes a quantum mechanical variable.” –Laurence Krauss[7]

New Quantum Eraser experiments (as recent as 2013) show that certain quantum events don’t depend on space-time at all[8]

“In a certain sense, quantum events are independent from space and time.”- Anton Zeilinger [9]


Additionally, there are physics papers which model quantum mechanics without a background space-time, such as this one by T. P. Singh:

“Quantum mechanics without spacetime IV : a noncommutative Hamilton-Jacobi equation” [10]

The idea that the tunnelling event needs a background space-time is simply unconvincing, and I’m not aware of any physicist that holds that position. Space-time and all the energy in the universe could have arisen from this timeless and spaceless state of affairs that is describable by the quantum laws which allow for a universe to come into being in such a fashion.

Possible Objection 2

Wouldn't the transition from a zero energy state, to a state with energy violate the first law of thermodynamics, which states that energy is conserved[11]? The problem with this objection is that the universe probably has a zero total sum energy. energy can be both positive and negative. This means, that as much new energy can be created without violation of any physical laws as long as there is enough negative energy to balance it out. A flat universe has zero total energy:

" [T]he flat universe has a zero energy"[12]

Even in a closed universe, the universe plausibly has a total energy sum of zero[13]. This is because if you added up all the positive energy (motion, matter ect.) and the negative energy of gravitational attraction (and just simply stored in space), they would cancel each other out. Negative energy has even been experimentally verified between two Casimir plates[14].

Possible Objection 3

One could just ask where this timeless, spaceless, zero energy state describable by the laws of nature "came from", or ask how it "got there". Of course, there is no reason to think that this state "came from" or "got there" as it is completely timeless. Only things with a finite temporal duration come into being. Either way, one could pose the same type of question against God, so it would be be futile for the theist to object in this manor.

Conclusion

I gave a sketch of Alexander Vilenkin's model of cosmic origins, which explains the beginning of the universe naturally without reference to God. This means, that the universe can be explained naturally without God in context. Thus, the resolution has been affirmed.

Sources

[1] Juli Pereto (March 2005). "Controversies on the origin of life". International microbiology : the official journal of the Spanish Society for Microbiology 8 (1): 23–31
[2] http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
[3] http://mukto-mona.net...
[4] http://www.infidels.org...
[5][6]Alexander Vilenkin: "Many worlds in one: The search for other universes" (P. 181)
[7] Video Source (0.18:30)
[8][9] http://phys.org...
[10] http://arxiv.org...
[11] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
[12] http://news.softpedia.com...
[13] http://arxiv.org...
[14] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[15] The Divine AttributesBy Joshua Hoffman, Gary S. Rosenkrantz (P.98)
Inspired

Pro

There are several problems with this debate so far:

1. The resolution of this debate is "The Universe can be explained without God". My opponent has taken the Con side of this argument, meaning he is against the fact that the universe can be explained without God, so in essence he is FOR the universe being created by God. Although based on my opponent's atheistic claims and previous argument, this is not the case.

2. In his clarifications, my opponent has said, "For the sake of debate, we will assume that God could hypothetically be used an explanation for the beginning of the universe." and also, "Either way, Con has to accept that the Big Bang happened in the context of this debate. The very definition of "universe" in this debate includes the notion that The Big Bang was a reality. If Con, for some reason, doesn't like that then he should not have accepted this debate."

So basically the Pro side of this argument can use the explanation of God but has to use the definition of the universe as being 13.7 billion years old? This is illogical, as the earth isn't that old and references in the Bible can confirm that the earth is approximately only 6,000 years old. My argument is based upon this and numerous scientific observations. If this is unacceptable to my opponent, then he should have explained the debate terms more clearly. In summary, the Pro side can explain the universe in any form except for God? How does that make sense?

I would like to continue with my main points


The Big Bang Theory

"The above is problematic as The Big Bang theory is the scientific explanation that describes the evolution of the universe, it is not a scientific explanation of life; the best candidate for that is Abiogenesis[1]. As a theory that describes the evolution of the universe, The Big Bang Theory is a very well established scientific theory, which has made predictions which have been confirmed by testing"

Also, I posted my argument to the forums and received no scientific response.

"The Big Bang Theory adheres to the scientific method you listed. So, I am "completely dumbfounded" as to why you think there is a problem. The Big Bang Theory is universally accepted by cosmologists because the evidence for it is so overwhelming. If you don't value evidence, then I don't know what to tell you."

The reason I do not value the "evidence" is because there is no scientific evidence to value. The Big Bang Theory merely is a means to explain the universe without God. My opponent fails to bring up any actual evidence regarding this topic as well. I am more than willing to hear any evidence, as long as it falls within the boundaries of science, not philosophy or religion.


The Big Bang Theory is illogical as a scientific explanation of the origin of life.

You cannot use science to prove/disprove the theory because it is just that....a theory. The Big Bang Theory states that 13.7 BYA (currently), the universe sprang into existence from a singularity. But where did this singularity come from? A better question is where did the energy come from to form this "singularity"? Where did matter itself come from? The scientific method states that in order for something to be proven it must follow the steps of the scientific method listed below:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

By definition of dictionary.com, a theory is "a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:"

Now that we have set parameters and definition in place, let us discuss the theory itself. According to science, the Big Bang Theory is completely illogical and shouldn't even be referred to as a theory! Frankly, I am amazed that this ridiculous idea has gotten to the theory stage. By definition, the Big Bang "Theory" cannot be tested and it is certainly not coherent in any sort of group. The first step of the scientific method states that you must observe some aspect of the universe. Since the Big Bang falls into a pre-universe formation, then it is not scientific. The only thing correct about the definition is that the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted by scientists as an explanation for the beginning of everything.

Why do scientists continue to regard this as science?

The age of the earth as observed through science today

Math question: The moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of about 4 cm/year. The moon is 238,900 miles from earth. The earth is estimated (by scientists) to be 4.54 BILLION YEARS OLD. Assuming that 4 cm/year is a constant, how close was the moon to the earth at the beginning?

Answer: Approximately 126,059 miles

Estimated time when life began on earth: 3.5 BILLION YEARS AGO
That would mean the moon would have been 151,908 miles from earth.

Conclusion: Nothing would have lived with the moon that close to the earth.

There is also a thin layer of dust on the moon, as witnessed by the Apollo astronauts. You'll probably give me the argument that the moon came from the earth, or the moon is just an asteroid that struck the earth X number of millions of years ago. You need to show evidence though! Not theories as to how the moon got there. That isn't science because it cannot be proved. Just like the Big Bang Theory cannot be proved because it isn't repeatable and no one witnessed it happen.

There are other observations, such as the sun shrinking (about 1 inch per year), etc. I won't be able to list all of them but there are 101 observations listed here: http://creation.com...

The concepts of time, space, order, and reality


All four are too complex to just evolve from nothing. They had to have a creator. Unless you want to state that we are not living in reality, you have to step back and examine all four and how they interact to really appreciate their design.

Imagine if you took all the parts needed for a clock and placed them inside a transparent box. Eventually if you shook that box long enough, would all the parts fall into the exact position needed? Of course not. The evolution of life and the beginning of the universe are far more complex than a clock, and yet scientists today claim the very same argument.

http://www.answersingenesis.org...;


Ultimately, the universe's origin and explanation all comes down to a matter of faith. Do you have faith in scientists? Or would you rather have faith in a God who took care to design everything in precise detail? In either side of this debate, you must have faith in one or the other. Thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

A Mistake On My Behalf

I should have been Pro in this debate but I put Con accidentally. However, I clarified exactly what we would be debating individually in the introduction round. Thus, I don't think that this should be held against me.

I will be referring to myself as Pro.

The Universe

Con accepted this debate under the definitions I provided. Thus, he has to accept the Big Bang and that the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years old in context. Even if these are false presumptions; it doesn't matter. The very definition of universe Con accepted this debate under presupposes these two assertions. Either way, the most accurate age of the universe is roughly 13.7 billion years old and we know this scientifically from observation[1]. The age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years old[2]. Therefore, if The Bible says that the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old; it is dead wrong. The Bible doesn't even claim that the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old. As respected Christian philosopher William Lane Craig notes:

"Over 50% of evangelical pastors think that the world is less than 10,000 years old...That is just hugely embarrassing...Scientifically, it's nonsense... It's really quite shocking when you think about it... There is no reason to think that The Bible, in Genesis or anywhere else, teaches that the world is only [roughly] 10,000 years old." - William Lane Craig[3]

The Big Bang

Con simply bare-asserts that The Big Bang just exists to explain the universe without God. That is clearly nonsense. The Person who fathered and developed The Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest[4], why would he work so hard to develop a Theory that undermines God? Theists commonly reacted to The Big Bang theory as something which confirmed God's existence:

"Science has provided proof of the beginning of time. . . . Hence, creation took place in time. Therefore there is a Creator; therefore, God exists." - Pope Pius XII (1951)[5]

When a priest fathers the theory, and popes think that it demonstrates God's existence, it is hard to see how one can take seriously the idea that The Big Bang is somehow an Atheistic theory. He says that I failed to bring up evidence for The Big Bang but that is false. I provided a link to NASA's page in the first round with evidence. I don't even need to provide evidence, as Con accepted this debate under a definition of "universe" which presupposes The Big Bang, and an age of the universe that is billions of years old.

Is The Big Bang Theory Illogical As A Scientific Explanation Of The Origin Of Life?

Only the standard Big Bang model predicts a singularity, and most think that the prediction is wrong and that The Big Bang has to be modified to account for quantum gravity:

"It is widely expected that this new improved theory [involving Quantum Gravity] will not contain the singular histories that characterised Einstein’s theory..." - John Barrow[6]

Con also asks where the energy came from. However, I already explained a plausible scenario in my first round; the universe most likely has a total net energy of zero, and it could have came from a timeless, and spaceless zero energy state describable by the laws of nature (Alexander Vilenkin's quantum tunnelling model).

My opponent then lists what the scientific method is. The Big Bang completely adheres to it. He says that The Big Bang Theory cannot be tested. This is embarrassing, as I provided a link to Big Bang tests in my last round. The Big Bang makes two major predictions:

(i) The universe is expanding
(ii) There exists an afterglow from the radiation produced by The Big Bang

Scientific testing has confirmed these predictions. The Red-Shifting of the galaxies demonstrate that the universe is expanding[7], and the Cosmic Microwave Background is the afterglow of The Big Bang[8]. Additionally, The Big Bang says nothing about a "pre-universe", it only describes the universe after it exists.

Why do scientists still regard The Big Bang as science? Because it is. It involves some of the best science we have today.

Scientific Age Of The Earth

It seems as if I will expand on this issue further

How Do We Know How Old The Earth Is?

"Geologists used these pristine objects, such as the Canyon Diablo meteorite (the fragments of the asteroid that impacted at Barringer Crater) as a way to get at the true age of the Solar System, and therefore the Earth. By using the radiometric dating system on these meteorites, geologists have been able to determine that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old within a margin of error of about 1%."[9]

By use of geometric dating, we know that the age of the Earth is around 4.5 Billion years old. This is the scientific age of the Earth.

Why My Opponent Is Misguided On The Age Of The Earth

-- Receding Moon

Yes, the moon is receding at about 3.8 cm per year. The moon is 3.85 × 1010 cm from the earth though, so this is consistent with an Earth that is billions of years old. The rotation of the Earth as slowed at a rate of two seconds every 100,000 years as well[10], which further undermines Con's argument in this regard as this is inconsistent with a young Earth.

-- Moon Dust

Con argues that there is too little dust on the moon to account for a Earth that is billions of years old. This is simply not true, and even known Creationists like Snelling and Rush disagree with my opponent here:

"It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale"[11]

Con hasn't even really presented an argument for his position here. I don't feel the need to go into it anymore.

-- Sun Shrinking

The argument assumes the shrinking is constant. This assumption is without foundation.

Now, Inspired said something very bizarre:

"That isn't science because it cannot be proved." - Con

My opponent clearly does not understand science:

"Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science." - Satoshi Kanazawa[12]

Nothing in science is 100% certain. However, we have overwhelming scientific evidence for The Big Bang (as I have already explained in this round). Therefore, to deny it would be irrational.

The Concepts Of Time, Space, Order, And Reality

If reality needs a creator, then the creator couldn't be real. In any event, Con argues that space, time, and order need a designer because it is so complex. Why should anyone believe my opponent though? I already provided a modal (Alexander Vilenkin's) which describes a universe coming into being as a quantum tunnelling event from a zero energy state; no designer required. Also, science is not based on "faith" but evidence. It is much more reliable than some bronze age book written by the scientifically ignorant.

Conclusion

Con accepts The Big Bang and the true age of the universe just by accepted this debate with the definitions provided. I only combated my opponent's claims out of boredom. He did not even challenge the model I presented. God isn't needed to explain the universe; the resolution has been affirmed.

Sources

[1] http://science.nasa.gov...
[2] http://www.universetoday.com...
[3] Video Source
[4] http://www.amnh.org...
[5] http://www.colorado.edu...
[6] John Barrow & Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1986), page 290
[7] http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov...
[8] http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
[9] http://www.universetoday.com...
[10] Eicher, D. L., 1976. Geologic Time. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall
[11] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[12] http://www.psychologytoday.com...
Inspired

Pro

First, I would like to thank my opponent for what he has done so far. I could counter everything he posted above, but I won't because it will take too long, and it goes off the topic of this debate. It seems as though my opponent would rather not discuss the topic of the God and instead talk about different possible origin theories as evidenced by his first argument.

Second, I wasn't paying attention and didn't realize that my opponent had defined the universe at being 13.7 billion year old. Since this is a definition invented by my opponent and not an accurate one, I cannot defend it. I fail to see how my opponent would like me to explain the universe with a God using a definition that supports his side of the debate. Since this is the case, I respectfully withdraw.

I would like to ask my opponent to please use unbiased definitions in future debates. I am more than willing to debate this topic on those terms, or any other topic for that matter.
Debate Round No. 3
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

"First, I would like to thank my opponent for what he has done so far.'

I thank you for the debate as well.

"
I could counter everything he posted above, but I won't because it will take too long, and it goes off the topic of this debate."

I doubt you could. Yong Earth Creationist's arguments have all been thoroughly debunked.

"It seems as though my opponent would rather not discuss the topic of the God and instead talk about different possible origin theories as evidenced by his first argument."

Well, of course; this should be evident. The resolution was pertaining to whether or not I could provide an explanation without reference to God included within it, or an explanation that doesn't involve his causal actions. I just wanted to show that the universe can be explained Atheistically, and that no God has to exist to explain the universe (even if it is possible for him to exist).

"Second, I wasn't paying attention and didn't realize that my opponent had defined the universe at being 13.7 billion year old. Since this is a definition invented by my opponent and not an accurate one, I cannot defend it."

It is an accurate definition regardless of whether it was invented or not. The universe is 13.7 billion years old, and I provided scientific sources to back my claims.

"I fail to see how my opponent would like me to explain the universe with a God using a definition that supports his side of the debate. Since this is the case, I respectfully withdraw. "

The definition doesn't support my side of the debate; it is more than fairly neutral. Most Christians I interact with use The Big Bang as evidence for God and believe the universe is 13.7 billion years old. The biggest Christian philosophers (William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne) all look at Young Earth Creationism as false. The esteemed and intellectual Theists are Old Earth Creationists, and Theistic Evolutionists. Therefore, it is unfair to claim I had a biased definition, when most theists I debate with would certainly accept it.

"I would like to ask my opponent to please use unbiased definitions in future debates."

As I said, the definition is not biased as it doesn't support Atheism any more than Theism. Most theists I debate end up bringing up The Big Bang before I do. If you were a Young Earth Creationist, then you shouldn't have accepted the debate; the definition clearly was outlined for Old Earth Creationists.

"
I am more than willing to debate this topic on those terms, or any other topic for that matter"

Possibly.

Inspired

Pro

It really isn't necessary to put a withdrawal in quotes and respond to that. If you would like to believe in evolution, then that is your choice. If you don't want to believe in God, that is your choice, but don't destroy other people's opinions You seem to have the idea that evolution cannot be questioned because of "proof" that hasn't been proven. The Big Bang Theory is just one argument in the multitudes of other arguments about evolution. One day I truly hope you see the errors in your logic. Science doesn't hold all the answers as you claim it to. Science is useful, the religion of evolution is not.


"I doubt you could. Yong Earth Creationist's arguments have all been thoroughly debunked."

And..yes I can, and no they haven't. I simply do not have the time nor the energy to put forth an argument that you won't even listen to in the first place, so really why should I bother? Below are some links that support what I say. I encourage my opponent and the readers of this debate to examine them.

http://www.remnantofgod.org...
http://www.answersingenesis.org...
http://www.genesis-creation-proof.com...
http://www.bestbiblescience.org...
http://www.creationism.org...

Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by uchitrakar 1 year ago
uchitrakar
When scientists say that the universe can simply come out of nothing without any divine intervention, they think of the universe in terms of its energy content only. In the book "The Grand Design", page 281, scientist Stephen Hawking has written that bodies like stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing, but a whole universe can. The message is very clear from this: The total energy of a whole universe is zero and that is why it can come out of nothing; but stars or black holes will fail to do so, because their total energy is not zero. But universe means not only its energy; universe means its space-time as well. So if we now apply the same logic to space-time as well, then we can say that the total space-time of a whole universe must also always have to be zero, because in that case only a whole universe can appear out of nothing. Here my question is: How does the total space-time of an ever-expanding universe always remain zero?
As the universe appeared out of nothing, so initially there was no space, no time, no matter and no energy. Scientists have successfully shown how the total matter-energy content of the universe has always remained zero. But we are not satisfied with that explanation, we want something more. We also want to know how the total space-time content of the universe has always remained zero. And it should always remain zero if the universe has actually appeared out of nothing. Otherwise scientists will have to explain as to whence appeared the extra residual space-time that was not already there at the beginning.
If stars or black holes cannot appear out of nothing simply because their total energy is not zero, then can a whole universe appear out of nothing if its total space-time is not zero?
The last question above will further boil down to this one: Do the physicists think that energy cannot just appear out of nothing, but space-time can, supposing that the total space-time of the present universe is not zero?
Or, do
Posted by king_arthur 3 years ago
king_arthur
deterministic nature of the universe is highly controversial, and is more of theological basis as it is a paradox between deterministic nature and free will. Based on present human knowledge if a person is to choose between the 2, it will have to be based on opinion rather than facts. therefore those such as you who accept the deterministic nature of the universe are able to justify the probability of the life from the big bang, but those of us who choose to believe in free will such as me will not be able to justify this .

also the deterministic nature of the universe can be argued as a point toward god if considered in a philosophical sense, order is the sign of life entity and as the whole universe has shows perfect order from inception, the universe as a whole can be considered as a life form (god).

you have failed to address the issue regarding dark energy , dark matter and space time which is the reason this is still just a "THEORY"

p.s. AT ONE TIME THE NOTION THAT THE SUN REVOLVED AROUND THE EARTH WAS ALSO AN "ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC THEORY"
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"accounting for the statistical probobility of life (humans) arising from the big bang(I.e. The sequence of all events from start to today) is so small it can be considered mathematically impossible .. or you could simply say chance but that not provide a scientific backing"

This begs the question against determinism. If every state of the universe has to cause the next state following state specifically, then the chain is deterministic; everything had a 1/1 chance.
Posted by king_arthur 3 years ago
king_arthur
Though this argument had much potential the initial constraints seems to prevent a justified outcome. ..

Back to topic the issue of dark matter and energy which is simply a name given to everything we don't understand accounts for 90% of everything and plays a pivotal role but was not addressed by either ..

accounting for the statistical probobility of life (humans) arising from the big bang(I.e. The sequence of all events from start to today) is so small it can be considered mathematically impossible .. or you could simply say chance but that not provide a scientific backing. ..

Our current lack of understanding about the fabric of time as this is intertwined worn the universe. ...(Einsteins theories show time as dip or curvature in the fabric of the universe and States that current laws of physics arise do to this)
Finally you state that energy zero scenario which also implies a point at which time is no longer a factor.. And under a no time scenario all laws of physics change. Allowing the possibility of God but still allowing the possibility of the big bang
Posted by Jakeross6 3 years ago
Jakeross6
None of those texts have it in there, my friend.
Posted by TG2333 3 years ago
TG2333
i would just like to point out that the Catholic priest who made the theory, he found it in the torah,bible,quran
Posted by Jakeross6 3 years ago
Jakeross6
To begin, I would like to say that I am largely disappointed in this debate. Pro (Rational_Thinker9119) clearly laid out the definition of the the universe as follows:
Universe
The entirety of energy, space, and time that leads back to roughly 13.7 billion years ago (when our universe began); excluding any previous (whether temporal or non-temoral) state "prior" to "The Big Bang"

For some reason, Con (Inspired) decided to ignore this definition and carried on as if he had never seen it and even accused the Pro of asserting something not laid out in the debate description. Pro lays this out in his Round 3 response. Next, Con lays out several unsubstantiated claims that did not have any context to the debate. I will chalk that up to the lack of attention given to the Pro's definition of the Universe that was really meant to ward off the Creationists and aim for a good, enlightening debate for either one or the other side. For all of these things, plus more if I am asked for an explanation, Con loses the conduct point.

Spelling and grammar was fine on both ends. Plus, I want to avoid giving a 7 point win as that would probably get me flagged for a vote bomb, which this is not. Plus, it also works as a penalty for the Pro/Con confusion, but I think such a penalty is unwarranted as this is an honest mistake.

Convincing arguments go to Pro (Rational_Thinker9119) due to his well founded, well presented, and unrefuted arguments. Even though Con produced some arguments in Round 2, he failed to refute any of Pro's points and continued to spout unfounded nonsense. Moreover, Pro was quite convincing in his explanation without a god. I enjoyed reading his Round 2 arguments. His Round 3 arguments were only made relevant because of the Con's off topic creationist ideas.

Finally, sources go to Pro because he used great sources such as NASA while Con decided to pull from discredited sites such as answers in genesis and Creation.com. Ridiculous.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Inspire is wrong. We have evidence for The Big Bang; no evidence for God.
Posted by Cristnogol 3 years ago
Cristnogol
As Inspired said, there is no evidence for either side. It's you choice to believe what you want.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
There is a reason why The Big Bang is the most currently accepted model of the universe. All of its predictions have turned out to be true... If it was just pure speculation, then nobody would have bought into it! The common view of the universe before The Big Bang was that it was eternal and people were quite comfortable with that assumption. If there wasn't powerful evidence for The Big Bang nobody would have changed their minds. For example, Einstein HATED The Big Bang, and tried to get around it. He finally admitted he was wrong and recanted his position. Now, virtually every scientist accepts The Big Bang:

"We know that this explosion really happened" - Physicist Alexander Vilenkin
"The Big Bang Theory is a solid part of science as we understand it. Anybody who doesn't accept it is regarded by most of the [scientific] community as a crack pot." - Physicist Alan Guth

You have to deny evidence, logic, reason, and science to say The Big Bang didn't happen. Are you willing to do that?! Do you hate knowledge that much?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bballboy9876 3 years ago
bballboy9876
Rational_Thinker9119InspiredTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con Had Better Arguments. Conduct Goes To Con As Pro Basically Gave Up In the end.
Vote Placed by Jakeross6 3 years ago
Jakeross6
Rational_Thinker9119InspiredTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: In my RFD, Pro= rational_thinker9119. RFD will be in comments. Give me time to type it up. The only reason I am voting on this debate is because no one has voted thus far (unless, of course, my internet has not refreshed said vote).