The Instigator
MagicAintReal
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
brontoraptor
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Universe Was Created By God

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 1 vote the winner is...
MagicAintReal
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 969 times Debate No: 89208
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (56)
Votes (1)

 

MagicAintReal

Con

*No acceptance round; just start debating.
*Definitions can be changed, BEFORE ACCEPTING the debate, in the comments section, as long as both Pro and Con agree, otherwise...
*Definitions below are agreed to by accepting the debate.

Resolution
The universe was created by god.

Pro
Has the Burden of Proof and 4 sets of 10,000 characters to AFFIRM the resolution that the universe was created by god.
This requires Pro to show:
1) god's existence
2) god's involvement in the creation of the universe

Con
Has only 3 sets of 10,000 characters to NEGATE the resolution that the universe was created by god.

Definitions

universe - all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

created - to bring into existence.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

god - the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshiped especially by Christians.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
brontoraptor

Pro

Atheism is logically impossible.

Without God we get a regress in infinite causality. Meaning, we must accept infinite history, which is synonymous with the logic of saying everyone has a mother, but there is no first mother. We have history, but no first history. We have events, but no first event.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Ironically, everyone always says the chicken. Why? Because the human mind knows that we must have a first uncaused cause. It's common sense. The concept of everyone having a mother, yet there being no "first mother" is obviously absurd and illogical. The same applies for causes. Everything was caused, but there is no first cause? It's identical logic. Thus, we cannot exist...unless...there is a cause from outside of space and time existing beyond the laws of science and time as we know them.

*

Atheistic Philosophical question-

"How can God exist beyond our reality?"

How can a computer programmer exist outside of the video game he creates? They just do. That is simply reality as we know it.

---

The universe began to exist.

The Big Bang-

"The big bang picture is too firmly grounded in data from every area to be proved invalid in its general features."

-Lawrence Krauss

"The Big Bang theory offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of LIGHT elements."


"God said, Let there be light, and there was light."

(Genesis 1:3)

*

"The model accounts for the fact that the universe EXPANDED."


"God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness."

(Genesis 1:4)

"This is what the LORD says, your Redeemer and Creator: "I am the LORD, who made all things. I alone stretched out the heavens."

(Isaiah 44:24)

---

Just for grins...

"He spreads out the skies in empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing."

(Job 26:7)

-----

The Drake equation is a probability based argument used to arrive at an estimate of the number of active, communicative extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy.

The original argument was that there should be intelligent life "teaming" across the Milky Way. After years of searching audably and by sight, nothing came to fruition. This phenomenon was so named the Fermi Paradox. Where is everyone?

An original model of what conditions must exist for a planet to support life became bigger, and bigger, and bigger until...

Carl Sagan in connection with this equation came to an interesting conclusion. He said that NO planets can support life. (That would include Earth.) The given number was 1/1,000,000,000,000,000 in probability, and equated to a quarter coming up heads a quadzillion times in a row for the environment of Earth to exist at all.

-----

It took the blink of an eye for the equation of our existance to manifest itself. If any one thing had been different, our universe could not exist at all.

Many scientists have stated that if the fundamental physical constants were to vary even so slightly, the establishment of matter, astronomical constructs, elemental diversity, and life, as humans know it would have never happened. Reality is beyond a miracle.

-----

Fred Hoyle who coined the term "big bang" said the findings of science had shook his once unmoved belief in Atheism to its core.

Paul Davies described how he "loved Hoyle's maverick personality and contempt for orthodoxy."

*

The DNA code, based on "codons", informs and programs a cell's behavior.

Wikipedia describes codon as such:

"A codon is defined by the initial nucleotide from which translation starts. For example, the string GGGAAACCC, if read from the first position, contains the codons GGG, AAA, and CCC; and, if read from the second position, it contains the codons GGA and AAC; if read starting from the third position, GAA and ACC. Every sequence can, thus, be read in its 5' to 3' direction in three reading frames, each of which will produce a different amino acid sequence. With double-stranded DNA, there are six possible reading frames, three in the forward orientation on one strand and three reverse on the opposite strand. The actual frame from which a protein sequence is translated is defined by a start codon, usually the first AUG codon in the mRNA sequence."

Codes? Design? You tell me. But let's dig deeper.

*

James Gates, Physicist and Science adviser to Barack Obama.

James Gates and his researchers discovered something very intriguing buried within the mathematical equations of super symmetry.

What did they find? They found what he said resembled computer code.

"And it isn’t just random 1’s and 0’s either. Bizarrely, the code they found is code which is used in computer browser operating system software."


James Gates himself-

Debate Round No. 1
MagicAintReal

Con

*Intro*

Thanks Pro for accepting the debate.
I think this is gonna be a good one.

I reject the claim that the universe was created at all, let alone by an agent, including a presumed god.
To have something created, brought into existence per this debate, there needs to be stative time and the passage thereof to allow the process of creation to occur.

Creation necessarily requires:
1. a creator remaining long enough to create
2. the action of this creator creating
3. the subsequent existence of the created product

Without stative time and the passage thereof, a temporal process like creation, or bringing something into existence, is nonsensical.
How could one discern a creator from its created product without the passage of stative time?
Creators must precede their creations, and precedence, the fact of occurring earlier in time, requires stative time.

I reject this resolution, because stative time's origin and the universe's origin are in fact the same, which negates a temporal process like creation from occurring without the universe.


*THE UNIVERSE*
All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.

Our universe has matter and space.
Matter distorts space and creates gravity.
http://www.einstein-online.info...

The way that particle physicists and cosmologists look at the total universe's energy is by the totality of observable matter (you, me, the planets and stars) and gravity (distortions of space).


https://en.wikipedia.org...

Matter, in this energy combination, acts as positive energy (+), because matter is doing the distorting.
Gravity, in this energy combination, acts as negative energy (-), because it's a result of the distorting.

So, what if we could see how curved space is throughout the entire observable universe given this (+)matter and (-)gravity interplay?

Well we can, and we have, using the WMAP, which is an anisotropy probe attached to a space shuttle that measures variations in the otherwise uniform Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, and gives us a massively accurate picture of the scale, shape, and size of the observable universe.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

We now know that our universe is flat, because the spacial curvature (the total effect of matter on space) of the universe is zero.
http://astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org...

Therefore, all of the positive energy (+matter) is exactly being cancelled out by all of the negative energy (-gravity) in our universe, so that the total energy [+matter,-gravity] of the universe is in fact zero.

As a set, the universe's matter and gravity would look like [+matter, -gravity] = 0
So, we could imagine what the set might look like currently, given our massive universe of +matter and -gravity...

[+10000000000000,-10000000000000] = 0
This shows lots of +matter and lots of -gravity exactly cancelled out.

But when there was no universe, matter and gravity were at [+0,-0] = 0
At [+0,-0], there is no matter or gravity to speak of and of course the total energy is 0.
In this zero energy state, there is/are no radiation/particles/wavelengths/matter/energy/space/time/gravity...nothing [+0,-0]= 0.

So, for this debate, I will be referring to the otherwise inaccurate phrase, "before the universe," as [+0,-0], when there was no universe.


*QUANTUM FLUCTUATIONS (QF)*

In our universe of space and matter, when you strip "something" of particles, radiation, and energy, you are left with nothing but empty space; this empty space is full of quantum fluctuations.

Quantum fluctuations are sub nuclear particles (not actually full particles, which is why some physicists call them "virtual" particles) existing and being annihilated by antiparticles, and the forces between these sub nuclear particles fluctuate along with this existence and annihilation.

I have to make this point perfectly clear.
These sub nuclear particles fluctuating in and out of existence are what nothing is, and this is always the case.
This is what nothing is.
http://scholarsresearchlibrary.com...

The article above refers to quantum fluctuations as vacuum fluctuations because, in our universe of space and matter, we've detected these fluctuations by using a vacuum that strips the basics of something from empty space.

But the sub nuclear particles in QF are something, right?
Nope.
They never statively exist; they exist and don't exist at the same instant, and it is this fluctuation that makes up nothing.
There is no "nothing" without these fluctuations, period.
What is nothing?
It is a state of fluctuating sub nuclear particles and their forces called quantum fluctuations.
https://www.youtube.com...

That video is short and explanatory of QF = nothing.

Quantum fluctuations are as real as microorganisms, and we've demonstrated and measured their effect, in current space, in detail.
http://physics.aps.org...

However, at [+0,-0], unlike our current universe, there was no space, and instead, like the forces between the sub nuclear particles, space and time fluctuated along with the sub nuclear particles.

Space is merely the position of matter or the distance between matter; matter dictates space.

At [+0,-0], in a quantum fluctuation, a sub-nuclear particle exists and is simultaneously annihilated by its antiparticle, and this pseudo moment allows for the fluctuated existence/nonexistence of space and time and the forces between the sub-nuclear particles; this was the condition at [+0,-0], which is a constant fluctuation of time/space/matter/energy/gravity thanks to QF.

These zero-energy quantum fluctuations, nothing, are such an unstable state that energy is guaranteed to be expressed from them; that expression is called the big bang and is the origin of our universe.

From nothing [+0,-0] to something [+1,-1] = The Big Bang.


http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...


*THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE - THE BIG BANG*

Pro has already conceded that the Big Bang occurred, but in order to explain why the universe couldn't have been created, by god or otherwise, I must explain our current understanding of the Big Bang model.

With the right radio telescope, even you can see that the space between the stars above us isn't just black space, it's filled with microwave radiation.
http://science.nasa.gov...

All of this CMB radiation, which is a "black body" as it absorbs all intercepted electromagnetic radiation, is nearly a uniform glow between stars across the universe, and is a proven indicator of an expandable hot dense state such as the Big Bang being the cosmos' origin.
http://www.mpg.de...

The small variations in the microwave's uniformity, show a very specific pattern, the same as that expected of a fairly uniformly distributed hot dense state that has expanded to the current size of the universe; this is called inflation.
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk...

Yeah, that link is from Cambridge...I know, argument from authority...go to page 9 of the PDF which is page 2 of the preface.

These small variations have been measured in detail, and match what would be expected if small thermal variations, generated by quantum fluctuations of sub-nuclear particles, had expanded to the size of the observable universe we see today.


*THE RESOLUTION IS FALSE*

Unfortunately for this resolution, at [+0,-0], in quantum fluctuations, there was no stative time, because there was no stative space.
Space and time are part of a continuum, so we call it spacetime.
http://www.einstein-online.info...

I reject the claim that the universe has a creator, god, because creation is a temporal process, contingent on stative time, and at [+0,-0] there was no stative time or the passage thereof, because there was no stative space; temporal processes like creation are nonsensical without stative time.

Therefore, a creator of the universe cannot be, because there is no creator of a universe that wasn't created.
brontoraptor

Pro

There is no empty space. There is a "bubbling soup" of quantum field fluctuations that come and go quickly.
*
In the double slit experiment we see an interesting phenomenon of quantum strangeness. When nonobserved electrons cause patterns of waves. When observed, their behavior and pattern changes based on observation.
*
"I knew you before I formed you in your mother's womb. Before you were born I set you apart."
(Jeremiah 1:5)
*
SPACE TIME DOES NOT RESTRICT THE LORD.
In the book of John, Jesus Christ made a statement concerning time and its relation to Him.
"Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I AM."
(John 8:58)
Notice He didn't say "I WAS." He said "I AM."
In Exodus, before Jesus was a man within our sense of time, the Lord talks with Moses, but Moses cannot look upon the Lord's face condensed by fire and blinding light.
"The Lord said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”
(Exodus 3:14)
In (1 Kings) Elijah went to where Moses had seen and talked to the Lord prior at Mount Horeb. He is surrounded by mighty winds that destroy boulders, the Earth quakes, and then he sees a flaming fire consumed with the Lord's voice, which is described as gentle and quiet. He begins speaking to the Lord.
(1 Kings19:8)
In our sense of time Christ walked the Earth after Moses and Elijah had been dead and gone a long time.
In the New Testament Christ had a perplexing event where His disciples were terrified at what was happening and could not understand it.
"Moses and Elijah appeared before them, talking with Jesus."
(Matthew 17:3)
When whatever was happening initially stopped, Jesus turned towards them and...
"There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light."
(Matthew 17:2)
When Moses prior, in Exodus, finished speaking to the Lord...
In Exodus 34:35, Moses face was shining like the sun, and the Children of Israel put a veil over his face.
*
Perhaps a video showing how that might work would be beneficial for visual conceptualisation.
Intersteller- "The Library"
*
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands."
(Psalms 19:1)
There is one way known to satisfy the paradox of infinite causes. If you can name another, go ahead. The construct of this method is indisputably designed. If you examine a computer and its constructs, you would know an intelligence created it. How can our reality have no first event, be infinite, and yet still be? Well, let's see what the Science Advisor to the President of the United States of America says.
-James Gates, Physicist and Science Advisor to Barack Obama.
James Gates and his researchers discovered something very intriguing buried within the mathematical equations of super symmetry.
What did they find? They found computer code. Our reality is controlled by computer code, and not just any code. This is a specific type of code referred to as "self correcting code". Richard Hamming established this coding system building on the concepts of Claude Shannon. Thus it is sometimes called "Hamming Code".
And it isn’t just random 1’s and 0’s either. Bizarrely, the code they found is code which is used in computer browser operating system software.
James Gates himself-
*
Genomes use the genetic code to write two completely separate languages. The first explains how proteins are made, and the other commands the cell on how genes will be controlled. One language is written on top of the other. Isn't it interesting that so much of our reality is codes and languages?
www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/12/scientists-discover-double-meaning-in-genetic-code
*
From DNA and RNA, to codons, the mathematically programmed construct of reality, everything shouts from the rooftops,"Intelligent design!"
*
What is reality? Let's check it out.
"What is real"?
*

In reality we do not need an answer for the answer if the answer is from beyond our reality. If the answer is from this reality, it demands an answer for the cause of every caused thing in an infinite regress. We must have a singularity somewhere. This singularity must come from outside, or beyond our reality. Once we establish it as the answer, we do not need an answer for the answer. When the answer comes from beyond our reality, it becomes a futile thing to attempt to define the construct of anything from beyond our reality. But, you know me. I'll give it a go.

Einstein referred to time interms of upper dimensions. He demonstrated time as having a point. From the point time could go in any direction as if in upper dimensional space, similar to how we move on a complex highway system, forward, to the left, up, then back down, and all around. Picture Christ as the point, the singularity if you will. From that point of "time and space" He can go to "the beginning". He can go to "the end". He exists as born, a man, creator, and finisher. He Himself said in the book of Revelation, "I am the Alpha and the Omega. The beginning and the end." In 1 John he is referred to in the status of that all things that exist exist only from Him. In Genesis God spoke reality into existance with a burst of light, similar to the Big Bang model.

In Revelation, God has come finishing it all. Via prophecy, God declared the beginning from the end. If He truely knows the end, He exists in the future, in the past, and in the present. He is omnipresent. This created medium belongs to Him, was created for Him, and is under His authority. He is timeless, immaterial, yet material all at once. He is the singularity. He is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient as a programmer can be all of those things over the worlds he creates, thus it is with God, yet with more complexity than man can comprehend. The Alpha is the cause of the beginning. The Omega is cause of the end.
Debate Round No. 2
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks Pro for your response.

I maintain that the universe was not created, because of the temporal problems of such a claim.
Without a universe at [+0,-0], there is no stative time in order to correctly declare that a temporal process, creation, occurred; no time, no creation, no creator.

But Pro doesn't seem to see it that way...

*Round 1 Rebuttal*

Pro asserts:
"Without God we get a regress in infinite causality. Meaning, we must accept infinite history, which is synonymous with the logic of saying everyone has a mother, but there is no first mother. We have history, but no first history. We have events, but no first event."

My response:
Nope.
I've explained, that without god, the universe has an origin, and, because there is no stative time in [+0,-0] quantum fluctuations, there is no infinity of time; time began when the universe began, so I guess this is our "first mother."

Pro asks:
"Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Ironically, everyone always says the chicken."

My response:
Well, you didn't ask me before your assertion about everyone.
The egg came first, because mutations that lead to speciation occur in the zygote, which is inside the egg.
Therefore, the predecessor to the chicken had a mutation occur within the egg that makes that egg a chicken egg, which lead to the first chicken.
The egg came first.

Pro continues:
"Many scientists have stated that if the fundamental physical constants were to vary even so slightly, the establishment of matter, astronomical constructs, elemental diversity, and life, as humans know it would have never happened. Reality is beyond a miracle."

My response:
No, you're just calling an after-the-fact result a miracle. This doesn't show there must be a creator, it just shows that the low odds of existence happened. Low odds do not necessitate purposiveness.

*Round 2 Rebuttal*

Pro claims:
"There is no empty space. There is a "bubbling soup" of quantum field fluctuations that come and go quickly."

My response:
I agree, and in this state at [+0,-0], there is no stative time. Instead, time is just another variable that "comes and goes quickly" with the other fluctuating variables. So when there was no universe, [+0,-0], time did not remain; it fluctuated.

Pro adds:
"In the double slit experiment we see an interesting phenomenon of quantum strangeness. When nonobserved electrons cause patterns of waves. When observed, their behavior and pattern changes based on observation."

My response:
Yup.
I fail to see what this has to do with quantum fluctuations or the creation of the universe/stative time, but the double slit experiment shows that particles can be both a particle and a wavelength.

Pro then claims:
"SPACE TIME DOES NOT RESTRICT THE LORD"

My response:
Aside from this being a bare assertion, the lack of spacetime restricts creation, a process that REQUIRES time to have occurred. No time, no creation, no creator, no created universe.

Pro attempts to support this assertion with the bible:
"In the book of John, Jesus Christ made a statement concerning time and its relation to Him...in our sense of time Christ walked the Earth after Moses and Elijah had been dead and gone a long time."

My response:
Pro, why should we consider the bible authoritative on matters of time or the universe?
So what if the bible says that "Moses face was shining like the sun, and the Children of Israel put a veil over his face?"
What does any of this have to do with the creation of the universe?

Pro makes another bare assertion:
"There is one way known to satisfy the paradox of infinite causes. If you can name another, go ahead."

My response:
[+0,-0] Quantum Fluctuations --> [+1,-1] Big Bang.
Check my round 2 for sources on this.

Pro continues:
"If you examine a computer and its constructs, you would know an intelligence created it."

My response:
Yeah, and every example of a computer we've ever known is designed by a natural, not supernatural, entity.
So, applying this rule to the universe, you should conclude that something natural, not supernatural like god, was responsible.
Also, we have only one example of a universe, unlike our many examples of computers from which we can deduce commonalities; or maybe Pro can find another universe that indicates his claim.

Pro piles on:
"Our reality is controlled by computer code, and not just any code...it isn"t just random 1"s and 0"s either. Bizarrely, the code they found is code which is used in computer browser operating system software."

My response:
Despite theawakenment.com's lack of credibility on matters of the universe or existence, simply because some codes resemble human-created codes doesn't mean that these codes were designed or indicate a designer, unless Pro is claiming that Microsoft and Google created the universe.

Pro goes on about genetic code:
"Genomes use the genetic code to write two completely separate languages. The first explains how proteins are made, and the other commands the cell on how genes will be controlled."

My response:
Ok, well when you have a debate about the origins of life, then maybe you could bring this up, but in a debate about the universe, this is irrelevant.

Pro then provides a clip from the Matrix to explain "What is real?"
All the clip shows is that there was a fictional movie made with Keanu Reeves...that's it.

Then Pro mentions:
"Einstein...demonstrated time as having a point."

My response:
Yeah, like the Big Bang.

Pro adds:
"Picture Christ as the point, the singularity if you will."

My response:
Ok, but this puts Jesus as the result, not the cause.

Pro furthers:
"In Genesis God spoke reality into existance with a burst of light, similar to the Big Bang model."

My response:
Nothing about the Big Bang model involves speaking anything...that Genesis mentions light and light is an elementary particle is coincidence and not indicative of Genesis's authoritativeness on matters of the universe.

Pro finishes:
"This created medium belongs to Him, was created for Him, and is under His authority."

My response:
How can this "medium" be created when this "medium" is the origin of time?
How can you call it creation, when there was no time for the process of creation to occur without the "medium" itself?
I'm not attacking god, I'm attacking the TEMPORAL process of creation occurring without time...it's inherently nonsensical.

Pro should attempt to address the temporal problems of calling the origin of time "creation."
How do you discern creator from created without time?

I reject this resolution, because, without stative time, temporal processes cannot occur.
brontoraptor

Pro

Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The beginning of time/space began to exist or be put into motion, thus there must be a cause. God is a self existing being who was not caused, thus needs no answer for a cause because He is uncaused.

Con stated:

"...every example of a computer we've ever known is designed by a natural, not supernatural, entity."

To be clear, this is a synonymous way of saying "humans created every computer we know of, not God."

And humans are intelligent agents who designed these computers.

*

Con Stated:

"...simply because some codes resemble human-created codes doesn't mean that these codes were designed or indicate a designer, unless Pro is claiming that Microsoft and Google created the universe."

Microsoft and Google were created by humans, which are intelligent agents who created such software. Computer codes and mediums do not just magically pop into existance. It's synonymous with saying Call of Duty 4 and its Construct randomly happened. We know this is impossible without an intelligent designer. And our reality is much more complex than Call of Duty 4. We are talking about Grand Theft Auto on super steroids in our case of reality. I assume Con does not believe in magic, nor do I.

*

Con said:

"How can this "medium" be created when this "medium" is the origin of time? How can you call it creation, when there was no time for the process of creation to occur without the "medium" itself?"

Con has with this statement declared that there once was no time. Time "became" at some point. This would indicate that time being put into motion in the first place was caused. He says that without time there "could be no creation", yet must cede that there was a "creation", whether by God or by something else all together, otherwise we wouldn't exist. There was a beginning event that propelled the start of our reality of space and time. Since Con states there was no time to have a creation event, he is ceding that there could be no start event in the first place, which is illogical, seeing that we do exist.

We need an agent to start the process that is beyond time, seeing that without time we can have no creation event otherwise, according to Con.

Time and space placed in motion in the first place had a cause. What is that cause? God? Something else? Without God, time and space never roll into motion. A stationary time and space sounds nice, but potential is not potential at all without a cause. It's like watching a leaf sitting in one spot for an hour. Suddenly it picks up, moves across the yard, and goes into motion. Why? It's motion had a cause. Without the wind or some other external cause, the leaf would not move. Thus, it is the same with time and space. It would take a tremedous amount of energy to put time and space into motion. Where did the energy come from? If we are to believe an energy force put it all into motion, without time, how could this be? Con himself has stated that no creation event could happen without static time. The same applies to whatever his theoretical cause is.

*

Con must rebuttle by claiming some sort of cause that put time and space into motion in the first place. No matter what that answer is it is unknowable even from the atheistic viewpoint.

If Con gives a theoretical cause of time and space going into motion, he needs evidence of this cause, otherwise it is a faith based assertion, and is no better an answer than a creator god or at best equal to the assertion of a creator in validity.

*

If time was stationary or "not" at all, this gives a lot of room to the notion of a creator that is timeless. So what do we know in accordance with Con's assertion of stationary or nonexistant time.

1)Time did not exist/was not in motion, and yet we exist.

2)Whatever the cause is of the creation or putting into motion of time, is timeless and not affected by time, otherwise nothing would have happened, thus we would not exist.

3)If causes can be non-effected by time and be causes in the first place, then whatever is the construct of that system allows for a timeless creator. Something must be beyond time if Con's assertion is 100% true. He must show evidence of a cause that is beyond time and space.
Debate Round No. 3
MagicAintReal

Con

*Round 3 Rebuttals*

Pro goes KCA:
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

My response:
First off, that's a bare assertion, and quantum mechanics would disagree.
https://profmattstrassler.com...

Now, my favorite argument for god is in fact this one, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, because it was an attempt to take the infinite regress problem of "everything that exists has a cause" and change it so that god is exempt from the "if it exists, it has a cause" rule; this is a form of special pleading.
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...

Before the Kalam argument, was the original cosmological argument that asserted that "everything that exists has a cause." This turns into an infinite regress, because if god exists, according to the assertion, then god must have a cause, and god's cause must have a cause, and god's cause's causes's cause must have a cause etc...

So, the Kalam takes an infinitive verb phrase "to begin to exist," applies it to "everything that exists has a cause," and changes the assertion to "everything that BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause," which exempts god from being caused, because, thanks to special pleading, he's always existed and never BEGINS TO exist.

This argument is two-fold fallacious.
A. It uses circular reasoning, or it begs the question.
B. It special pleads god's exemption.

A. By saying that things "begin to exist," you automatically create a set of "things that don't begin to exist" and a set of "things that do begin to exist."

The problem is that the set of "things that don't begin to exist" ends up only having one thing in it, god, which makes separating "begin to exist things" and "not beginning to exist things" a way to smuggle in god's presumed exemption in the conclusion.

The assertion that a thing, god, didn't begin to exist in the premise is simply repeated by saying that god is the only member of the "didn't begin to exist" set in the conclusion, which is begging the question or circular reasoning.
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...

B. By asserting that everything began to exist, except for god, you are special pleading god's exemption to the assumed rule. Without an explanation of how god should be considered exempt from the category, exempting him is special pleading, thus it is flawed logic and we can reject the conclusions from such.

Pro, other than bare assertions, like "god is uncaused," how is god exempt from the beginning to exist rule that you openly endorse?
Pro, could you explain the mechanism by which god accomplishes this exemption?
If you can't, then how do you know that this exemption has occurred?


Pro continues:
"The beginning of time/space began to exist or be put into motion, thus there must be a cause."

My response:
Much like the process of creation, causation is also temporal.
This means that time could not have been caused, because causation itself requires time.
It's like saying, "time began to exist as the result of a time event that occurred BEFORE the existence of time."
The temporal contradictions of creation and causation at [+0,-0] have not been addressed by Pro.


Pro baldly asserts again:
"God is a self existing being who was not caused, thus needs no answer for a cause because He is uncaused."

My response:
Aside from this egregious tautology, Pro simply asserts that god was uncaused and provides no explanation as to how this is the case.
I could just as easily assert that flagoiganberries are self existing beings, uncaused, and need no answer, and I would have accomplished the same level of demonstration that Pro has with his asserted god.

Pro tried to draw a similarity between designed-by-human computers and the universe.
I pointed out that if Pro is going to say that the universe was designed, which I also reject, like computers, then the universe, like computers, was designed by a natural, not supernatural, intelligence.


Pro responds:
"To be clear, this is a synonymous way of saying "humans created every computer we know of, not God."

My response:
No, it's another way of pointing out that your "universe is like a computer" analogy doesn't support a supernatural entity like your proposed god.
Instead, your analogy shows that natural designs come from natural agents, so if the natural universe was designed, your analogy would indicate that a natural entity was responsible; this is not indicative of a supernatural designer, the type of designer Pro is attempting to affirm.


Pro continues:
"Computer codes and mediums do not just magically pop into existance."

My response:
Yeah, natural entities are responsible for these computer codes, hence why computer codes are not "magical."


Pro furthers:
"[Something magically popping into existence is] synonymous with saying Call of Duty 4 and its Construct randomly happened."

My response:
Well, again, all of the examples EVER of video games have been shown to be designed by a natural entity, but we only have one example of the universe, and it has not been shown to be designed...the absurdity of the random video game manifestation contradicts the many examples of designed video games and is therefore nontransferable to the universe which has no standard examples with which to compare.


Pro retorts:
"Con has...declared that there once was no time...time "became" at some point...since Con states there was no time to have a creation event, he is ceding that there could be no start event in the first place, which is illogical, seeing that we do exist."

My response:
Ah, Pro addressed it finally.
Creation and origin are not the same thing.

creation - the process of bringing something into existence.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

origin - the point where something begins.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Time therefore had an origin, a POINT called the big bang, yet it did not experience a PROCESS of being created; that process must occur over time and at [+0,-0] there was no stative time or the passage thereof.

So, it's NOT illogical to concede an origin, but not a creation.
Creation is a series of events and an origin is a point; the terms are different.


Pro stays adamant:
"Time and space placed in motion in the first place had a cause."

My response:
Again, this is like saying, "Time was placed in motion in the first place by a time-based action."
How can a cause, a thing occurring over time, happen without time?


Pro adds:
"Without God, time and space never roll into motion...it would take a tremendous amount of energy to put time and space into motion. Where did the energy come from?"

My response:
I guess Pro ignored all of my round 2...oh well, here it is in a different way.
Quantum fluctuations are what nothing is, and this nothing is unstable; nothing cannot remain, so something, energy, is guaranteed.
At [+0,-0], spacetime fluctuated in and out of existence with the other fluctuating variables in quantum fluctuations, but once matter became stative [+1,-1], so did space.
At this point [+1,-1], space was as small as a virtual sub nuclear particle, so the proportion of stative energy from QF to such small space was massive...so massive that it drove the inflation of space.
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk...


Pro reasons:
"If we are to believe an energy force put it all into motion, without time, how could this be? Con himself has stated that no creation event could happen without static time. The same applies to whatever his theoretical cause is."

My response:
Did you look at my 2nd round, Pro?
All of the answers are there and sourced.
But to save you the scroll...

Right, at [+0,-0], unstable quantum fluctuations have space, time, matter, and energy fluctuating in and out of existence such that there is no stative time or the passage thereof, thus no temporal concepts like creation/causation occur.
But at [+0,-0], once a virtual sub nuclear particle avoids annihilation from its antiparticle, which is the inherent instability of QF, matter, energy, space and time are then stative [+1,-1] and this is the origin of the universe; it's an origin, not a creation.
Stative space at this point is so small that any stative energy is proportionally quite powerful-->inflation.


Pro ignores my round 2 some more:
"Con must rebuttle by claiming some sort of cause that put time and space into motion in the first place. No matter what that answer is it is unknowable even from the atheistic viewpoint."

My response:
Though it's not a cause, time and space in the first place is not only knowable, it's been demonstrated by the WMAP from NASA.
[+0,-0] Quantum Fluctuations-->[+1,-1] Big Bang.
Here's the model again:


http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...


Pro gets bold:
"If Con gives a theoretical cause of time and space going into motion, he needs evidence of this cause, otherwise it is a faith based assertion, and is no better an answer than a creator god or at best equal to the assertion of a creator in validity."

My response:
Pro, read my round 2 thoroughly...and check NASA's Big Bang Model that I've provided twice now.


Pro finishes:
"If time was stationary or "not" at all, this gives a lot of room to the notion of a creator that is timeless."

My response:
Let me translate.
"This gives a lot of room to the notion of a user of time-based actions that is timeless."
Pro, do you see the contradiction in your assertions?
If the creator is timeless, then why is he defined as a user of time i.e. a creator?
brontoraptor

Pro

Con asked the most profound question ever posed by Atheism.
"Pro, why should we consider the bible authoritative on matters of time or the universe?"
*
*
Science is the study of the natural. This is not where the definitive answer lies. Religion is the study of the supernatural. This is where the answer lies.
*
*
The Bible told the future of the world.
In the Bible, God declares that the world would find freedom and blessing through Isaac. He declared the world would reap a curse from Ishmael.
So what right?
It goes on to tell us that the descendents of Ishmael will be violent with their hand against each other and against everyone else. Ishmael is the father of the Arabs. Ishmael later became known as the father of Islam.
It tells us Ishmael's seed would be slaves to the end of days. Muslims later chose to refer to themselves as the "Slaves of Allah".
Isaac's seed would be free. Isaac is the father of the Jews, Jesus, and Christians. The nations known for freedom are Christian or Israel. Asian countries are not free or democratic. Muslim nations? It's the West, Christian world that is free.
*
*
Islam fulfills the Bible's prophetic guideline in reference to the Beast in too many improbable ways to imagine. Islam came along 700 years after the last book of the Bible was written.
*
*
Jesus Himself gave a warning to God's children in the end of days.
"So if someone tells you, 'Look, the Messiah is out in the desert,' don't bother to go or look. Or, 'Look, he is here,' do not believe it!"
The Mahdi (Islamic messiah) of course, will appear in in the middle of nowhere, in the desert.
*
*
-The Qur'an mentions that in the end of days "the Beast" will address the unbelievers and admonish them for their lack of attention towards God.
"And when the Word is fulfilled against them, the unjust, we shall produce from the earth a beast to face them."
— Qur'an, sura 27 (An-Naml), ayat 82
The Bible uses the exact term "the beast" in describing the Antichrist.
*
*
Islam-
"The beast will strike the head, and it will brighten the face of the believer with the staff and “He is destined for Paradise” will be written on his forehead."
In the Bible, the beast (Antichrist), marks the foreheads of his followers.
"And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded..."
(Revelation 20:4)
Christians are being killed in mass, targeted, and beheaded by ISIS in an event labled genocide by the U.S. government.
*
*
"Damascus will become a heap of ruins."
(Isaiah 17:1)
After the Syrian conflict, here is Damascus today. A heap of ruins.
*
*
"And Jerusalem was divided into 3 parts, and the cities of the nations then began to fall."
(Revelation 16:19)
Jerusalem is divided into Jewish, Muslim, and Christian.
*
*
What is antichrist?
"It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the ANTICHRIST--denying the Father and the Son."


(1 John 2:22)
The Quran specifically says Jesus is not the "Son of God".
*
*
"The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to bow to the IMAGE to be killed."
(Revelation 13:15)


The Quran commands unbelievers be killed. The punishment for apostasy is death.
(Quran 2:191-193)
*
*
"The great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up to prepare the way for the armies to cross."
(Revelation 16:12)
The water is dangerously low.
*
Criteria of the religion of Antichrist.
-Bow to an image.
(Revelation 13:15)
They do.


What are they actually bowing to? The black stone. (Pictures)
-The image "speaks".
(Revelation 13:15)
"Allah wrote this confirmation. This stone opens its mouth upon the order of Allah, who put that confirmation in it."
-Nonworship = death.
(Rev 13:15)
Has an "infallable prophet" who denounces Christ.
Muhammed, the infallable great Prophet that cannot even be depicted denounced Christ in the Quran.
*
*
Islamic tradition holds that the Black Stone fell from Heaven.
(Satan fell from Heaven)(Luke 10:18)
666? Greek to Arabic.
*
*

Only one religion in history was from the seed of Ishmael, had a great infallable prophet who specifically renounced the deity of Christ, commanded beheading of Christians, hated Jews, , bowed to an image, and believed the image telepathically spoke to people and literally would speak upon the apocalypse. What are the odds?
The Bible's Old Testament depicted that the battle on Earth is literally between Satan's children and God's children, between Christ and Satan. Strangely, thousands of years later the New Testament, as confirmed by Christ, depicted this battle exactly as it is today in ways no one could have known.
(Genesis 3:15)

Finally Christ depicted the condition of the world as that many would fall away from the faith. Atheism is on the move in all of the West and quickly. He said the world would go into economic collapse, become ungodly, have perplexing world issues, the youth would become rebellious to authority and their parents, people would begin to rebel against and mock God, and "knowledge" would be the cause. Man would become self centered, distracted from God, unloving, despisers of good, and that they would begin to call evil good and good evil bringing upon the world the iniquity of their sins, and thus the wrath of God.




We know reality is composed of codes that don't just resemble computer codes, but are computer codes. We know Jesus claimed to be God in human form. We know the probability of the Bible depicting the end in such a way is unsermountable. God created everything, including the universe.

Christ-
"When you see these things coming upon the Earth, do not be afraid, but look up, for your redemeption draws nigh."

*

Thanks Con. God bless all that you do.
Debate Round No. 4
56 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 7 months ago
MagicAintReal
Ok, then I will correct you.
At t = 0, I call it [+0,-0], it's a fluctuating state, such that time is a fluctuating variable along with the sub nuclear virtual particles.
The fact that these variables are fluctuating negates their stativeness; they don't remain...they are annihilated.
If you can imagine the virtual particles are popping in and out of existence, simply apply that same concept to time and space...you have to remember that at [+0,-0] there's no space, instead it too is fluctuating in and out of existence, and so is not stative.

As a virtual particle exists, so does time.
As a virtual particle is annihilated, so is time.

While I agree that less than planck time is not necessarily zero, at the point of no space, no energy, no matter, no time, no full particles, no radiation, t does in fact = 0, because neither time nor space is stative here, and this includes planck time.

The virtual particles pop into existence WITH time at t = 0, and thanks to this being the origin of time itself, the existence/annihilation of particles and time must be simultaneous...this fluctuating variable is the only time that exists and both the virtual particles and time are sharing this pseudo moment of existence/annihilation...it must be simultaneous it's the only time available.

If we're talking about quantum fluctuations in empty space, when time already exists, i.e. t =/= 0, then yeah, maybe it's not an instant of simultaneous causation, but when there was no time/space everything fluctuated, so all existence/annihilation at that point is part of the not stative, fluctuating time, t = 0.

Did that help?
Posted by tejretics 7 months ago
tejretics
@MagicAintReal

Correct me if I'm wrong, but quantum fluctuations *do* statively exist. They don't "exist and not exist at the same time," because quantum fluctuations don't come into existence at t = 0 -- they just come into existence at t = < Planck time. A value of t less than Planck time doesn't necessarily equal zero, and the annihilation of the "virtual particles" is actually not an instant of simultaneous causation, so it isn't really less than Planck time.
Posted by Heirio 7 months ago
Heirio
Pro's arguments are actually funny.
Posted by MagicAintReal 7 months ago
MagicAintReal
Word.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
There were issues with my internet that led to the double post.
Posted by MagicAintReal 7 months ago
MagicAintReal
"And in the last days it shall be, Flagoiganberry declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your men shall see visions and shall have dreams."
(Fiddle-Faddle 2:17)
Posted by brontoraptor 7 months ago
brontoraptor
You've provided no evidence of Flagoiganberry. Providesome, and I will believe it. If you provide evidence that it is teal and loves me, I will cherish it.
Posted by MagicAintReal 7 months ago
MagicAintReal
Was that 2nd non-removal accidental, or did the reporter of the vote report it twice?
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: tejretics// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments

[*Reason for non-removal*] The vote is more than sufficient, analyzing multiple facets of the debate and specifically assessing points made by each side. The voter did not admit to being biased towards voting Con as the reporter believes, but rather that he was asked to vote by Con. That does not indicate bias, especially as it was stated as a disclaimer.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: tejretics// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments

[*Reason for non-removal*] The vote is more than sufficient, analyzing multiple facets of the debate and specifically assessing points made by each side. The voter did not admit to being biased towards voting Con as the reporter believes, but rather that he was asked to vote by Con. That does not indicate bias, especially as it was stated as a disclaimer.
************************************************************************
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 7 months ago
tejretics
MagicAintRealbrontoraptorTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments