The Instigator
holla1755
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RandomTruth
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

The Universe Has Always Existed

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 2 votes the winner is...
RandomTruth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/16/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 690 times Debate No: 103224
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

holla1755

Pro

The universe has always existed. It doesn't make sense that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old. So what happened 20 billion years ago? It seems there had to be something happening 20 billion years ago, despite that being before the Big Bang.

A quick look at the observational evidence for the Big Bang on Wikipedia, located at https://en.wikipedia.org..., reveals that the evidence for the Big Bang is complicated, hard to understand, and abstract. For those reasons, I am not convinced by that evidence. It seems everything should be able to be understood in intuitive terms, terms that don't take a lifetime dedicated to physics to understand. This reminds me of the problem of the possibility of unperceived existence. If unperceived existence is not possible, and I don't perceive the truth of the Big Bang from its supposed evidence, then the Big Bang is not possible and thus did not occur.

The claim the universe was created does not add up.
RandomTruth

Con

The truth is that we don't know how old the universe is and as you point out the science isn't conclusive. However, your disbelif seems to be based on even less evidence and sounds like pure specuation. When you say "It seems there had to be something happening 20 billion years ago", what exactly do you mean and how did you come to this conclusion and what evidence do you have for this?

I agree that the Creation story is not a good one, not least because it is really more about religion than science. And if you agree to rely on science then you need to explain how you come to such a conclusion - you appear to infer there that were a time before the Big Bag but then you leap all the way to the title of the OP that the Universe has always existed! I don't think you have spuported that either so please explain.
Debate Round No. 1
holla1755

Pro

The evidence I have for the universe having always existed is that it doesn't make sense for the universe have been created. It doesn't make sense that the universe just came into existence from nothing. How would that be possible? How can something be created from nothing? It seems physically and perhaps even logically impossible. It seems to be a naive idea. If the universe just came about from nothing, I don't see why it would be impossible for other things, such as people and toothbrushes, to just come about from nothing in our everyday lives today. The idea the universe was created doesn't seem consistent. It seems like something a medieval alchemist would claim or a fairy tale would involve. It seems too fictitious.

Furthermore, years are measured by the time it takes for the earth to travel around the sun. Neither the earth nor the sun supposedly were around about 13.8 billion years ago, so the standard by which years are measured seems to be taken out of context.
RandomTruth

Con

Just because something doesn't make sense to you, that doesn't mean it's not true! You're not putting forward an argument at all and certainly no evidence for your position. Your entire response relies on your own personal credulity, education and what 'seems' reasonable to you.

Sorry, but that is not convincing at all! You'll have to provide some hard evidence for your claims or concede the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
holla1755

Pro

I did previously mention the problem of the possibility of unperceived existence. If I don't perceive the truth of a proposition, it's possible: the truth of the proposition doesn't exist and thus it seems the proposition is not true. If I don't perceive the truth of the creation of the universe, it's possible: the truth of the creation of the universe doesn't exist and thus it seems the universe was not created.

You haven't addressed all my questions and concerns. How would it be possible for the universe to just come into existence from nothing? How can something be created from nothing? If something can be created from nothing, perhaps even the truth of the proposition "the universe has always existed" can be created from the falsity of the proposition.

The universe may be infinite in space. https://www.universetoday.com..., visited Jul. 17, 2017. So it may be infinite in time.
RandomTruth

Con

Hmm, still sounds like personal credulity is at play here - and still no real evidence. Your argument is no more convincing than a theists creation story - it basically boils down to personal credulity.

I'm not offering my alternatives - this is a debate and not a discussion. I believe I have adequately shown that your position is untenable, at least in the sense of a scientific theory, or even one based on evidence. You argument is wholly about your personal mind and what it currently knows or understands.

I conclude that you have not demonstrated the topic of the universe having always exist and submit that all you are offering is a personal opinion; and not scientific nor evidence based nor detailed.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by RandomTruth 1 year ago
RandomTruth
I believe I had already answered the alternative: that we don't know. And just because we don't know the answer to something, it doesn't mean that it is the opposite of the OP. The third choice, is that we don't know: I say this in my initial response: "The truth is that we don't know how old the universe is".

I believe this is the only conclusion that can be drawn until more information is at hand.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
@RandomTruth, Unless it's obvious that the Burden of Proof is on Pro, I expect arguments or at least some reason to award Argument points to Con. 0 = 0; no supportive arguments = no supportive arguments.
Posted by RandomTruth 1 year ago
RandomTruth
@PowerPikachu21: I disagree - the OP had zero evidence for their position: there's no point offering the other side of a poor argument.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
Even if your opponent has bad/no arguments, it doesn't mean you shouldn't have your own arguments.
Posted by Lilieze 1 year ago
Lilieze
"f the universe just came about from nothing, I don't see why it would be impossible for other things, such as people and toothbrushes, to just come about from nothing in our everyday lives today. "

BUT WE DETECT virtual particles that come from nothing (layman terms).
Posted by zookdook1 1 year ago
zookdook1
I won't get into a full debate over this but I'd like to correct you on a few things. Feel free to explain why you disagree with the following:

1. The universe existed before the Big Bang, but it was a speck smaller than a grain of salt and contained all current matter and energy.

2. Just because evidence is 'abstract' and 'hard to understand' does not make it invalid.

3. You not understanding something does not make it impossible/false.

4. A simple, not-complex piece of evidence for the bang is the fact that all galaxies are moving away from each other at the same speed, in every direction.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by MrDelaney 1 year ago
MrDelaney
holla1755RandomTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con properly defended his position by calling our Pro's argument from ignorance and personal incredulity. Pro offered no actual argument for their position.
Vote Placed by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
holla1755RandomTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro commits a logical fallacy [Appeal to Complexity]: Just because you can't understand something, this does not make it false. Pro needed to show why it's more reasonable to believe the universe always existed. And in Round 3 he even appears to say because he doesn't believe the universe was created, that this it wasn't created. But... Con merely points out Pro's fallacy and chooses to not actually defend the Big Bang. Neither side had convincing arguments, no reason why I should prefer one side. Argument points are tied because of this. Pro said "the universe may be infinite in space, therefore infinite in time", and posts something about how many stars there are, though the argument appears incomplete, so the source becomes irrelevant. But in Round 1, Pro posts evidence for the Big Bang, except I don't see anything talking about this in the debate. The sources seem to just be there, so Sources are tied.