The Instigator
Cat_Lover
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

The big bang happened

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 6 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,090 times Debate No: 52203
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (6)

 

Cat_Lover

Pro

I strongly believe that the big bang DID happen, and I await my opponent.

The BoP is shared.

Round 1 is for acceptance, found two for arguments, round three for rebuttals, round 4 for more argument, and round five for more rebuttals and closing.

PS. My eyes have been bluried recently, so I apologize for any typoes.

Thanks to my opponent.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Cat_Lover

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate!

Here are my reasons for my opinion:

1. Universal Expansion


Scientists have knows for many years that our universe is expanding, so, all we have to do is trace that expansion back to a starting point, a point in time (T=0) when everything started, today we call it "The Big Bang.



2. Energy cannot be destroyed, nor created.



This is actually a viable point, if energy can't be destroyed or created, it has been around forever, as we know, energy can cause friction, creating heat, making the Big Bang particle to intensly hot.



3. For the Christians



According to the bible, God said "Let there be light" in my opinion, that sounds alot like the Big Bang, i.e a huge "Bang".


This part has nothing to do with the initial secular debate we are having, i just wanted to point out that The Big Bang doesnt violate the Bible.




Thanks again to my opponent.





I await my opponents rebuttals. :)


Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Argument Against The Resolution

P1: If it is not the case that at least one thing has happened with regards to the universe, The Big Bang did not happen

P2: It is not the case that at least one thing has happened with regards to the universe

C: Therefore, The Big Bang did not happen

The argument is logically valid via Modus Ponens, meaning that if the premises are true, the conclusion follows necessarily.

Defense Of P1

P1 is true necessarily. If nothing has ever happened with regards to the universe, then The Big Bang couldn't have happened, because The Big Bang would have been something that happened with regards to the universe. Pretty straight forward. The controversial premise will be P2.

Defense Of P2

I will argue that time doesn't apply to the universe or have any ontologically existence pertaining to the universe. Since this is the case, the Big Bang couldn't have "happened" because time needs to be applied to the universe for events to ontologically occur.

Basically, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation that most likely describes our universe (based on most Loop Quantum Gravity models and Superstring Theory models) has no time unit.

\hat{H}(x) |\psi\rangle = 0

This means that nothing ever happens. As a quote from a physicist article points out:

"The new problem was that time played no role in this equation. In effect, it says that nothing ever happens in the universe, a prediction that is clearly at odds with the observational evidence."[1]

So, how do we reconcile the Wheeler-DeWitt equation with observation and experience of time? Well, we can say that time is an illusion. However, is there any evidence of this? In fact a recent experiment confirmed it [2]. What the scientists were able to do is entangle particles in a toy universe, and show that to any inside observer, they would experience an illusion of time, but the universe would really be static and unchanging. Since the particles in the toy universe are entangled exactly how they are in the real universe, the same concept applies, and the same conclusion can be drawn in that regard.

Conclusion

Since time is an illusion, that means it doesn't really exist ontologically. That means there is no actual time for anything to happen, thus, The Big Bang couldn't have happened. This view is consistent with all the evidence we have for The Big Bang, as The Big Bang "13,7 years ago" would just be a static point, not an event that happened. This holds for any point that we would call "in time". The universe isn't actually expanding in reality, it is only what we observe, but what we observe is based on the illusion of time, which the Wheeler-DeWitt equation tells us plays no part in reality.

Since the argument I presented is logically valid, and the premises are true; the conclusion follows.

Sources

[1] https://medium.com...
[2] http://www.newscientist.com...



Debate Round No. 2
Cat_Lover

Pro

If nothing ever happened according to the universe, then we dont exist, I do not understand your logic.

The big bang must have happened, because our universe is expanding, we can trace it back to a starting point, the big bang.

Here are some pictures I found on the web, i hope you like them!


As you can see the starting point is the red-orange section, then it expands, eventually making the universe we have today.

Here is a timeline.


Here is the cosmic microwave background we were presented with in 2012


Dark Matter


During the 1970s and 1980s, various observations showed that there is not sufficient visible matter in the universe to account for the apparent strength of gravitational forces within and between galaxies. This led to the idea that up to 90% of the matter in the universe is dark matter that does not emit light or interact with normal baryonic matter. In addition, the assumption that the universe is mostly normal matter led to predictions that were strongly inconsistent with observations. In particular, the universe today is far more lumpy and contains far less deuterium than can be accounted for without dark matter. While dark matter has always been controversial, it is inferred by various observations: the anisotropies in the CMB, galaxy cluster velocity dispersions, large-scale structure distributions, gravitational lensing studies, and X-ray measurements of galaxy clusters.[78]


Indirect evidence for dark matter comes from its gravitational influence on other matter, as no dark matter particles have been observed in laboratories. Many particle physics candidates for dark matter have been proposed, and several projects to detect them directly are underway.[79]









Above we have a pie chart indicating the proportional composition of different energy-density components of the universe, according to the best ΛCDM model fits – roughly 95% is in the exotic forms of dark matter and dark energy

I hope the voters like my presentation, I pass the debate on to con.

Rational_Thinker9119

Con

I demonstrated in my last round that time doesn't really exist based on the Toy Universe experiment, and thus, nothing ever happens. This is due to the fact that there is no time unit in the Wheeler De-Witt equation which describes the universe, and the experiments that confirm this (to a reasonable extent). My opponent said that if nothing ever happens, we wouldn't exist. This is false, it just means that we exist timelessly. Nothing happens, as in events, but events don't need to happen in order for people or things to exist. Therefore, my opponent's reasoning is fallacious. Things and people don't require time, but events that "happen" do require time.

Is The Universe Expanding?

The universe is not expanding. In order for the universe to expand, it needs time for it to expand (temporal becoming, more specifically). Therefore, by making the claim that the universe is expanding, my opponent is begging the question against a timeless universe, and naively assuming time exists and isn't an illusion. Also, posting pictures is not an argument. Just because my opponent can post pictures of an expanding universe, that doesn't mean those pictures correspond to anything in reality.

Basically, here is my argument:

P1: If time doesn't exist, the universe is not expanding (expansion requires time for it to happen)
P2: Time doesn't exist
C: Therefore, the universe is not expanding

What my opponent fails to realize is that our observation of an expanding universe is contingent upon our experience of time. Therefore, if our experience of time is misconceived and an illusion, then the very reason we have to believe in an expanding universe is misconceived.

Dark Matter

Well, even if we assume the universe is expanding, what my opponent doesn't understand is that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are ad hoc hypotheses. Meaning, that they were made up to get around certain mathematical problems dealing with the gravitational forces between galaxies. There is literally 0 evidence for Dark Matter or Dark Energy. In fact, there are models of the universe in which the Dark Energy and Dark Matter don't exist, which are completely consistent with all observation.

"Assuming that observers located inside the Universe measure a time flow which is different from the time appearing in the Friedmann-Lemaitre equation, and determining this time flow such that the Universe always appears flat to these observers, we derive a simple cosmological model which allows to explain the velocity dispersions of galaxies in galaxy clusters without introducing dark matter. It also solves the horizon problem without recourse to inflation. Moreover, it explains the present acceleration of the expansion without any resort to dark energy and provides a good fit to the observations of distant supernovae. Depending on the present value of the matter-energy density, we calculate an age of the Universe between 15.4 and 16.5 billion years, significantly larger than the 13.7 billion years of the standard Lambda-CDM model. Our model has a slower expansion rate in the early epochs, thus leaving more time for the formation of structures such as stars and galaxies." - Pierre Magain [1]

Of course, that model assumes time exists, which is flawed, but the point is that even if we do assume that time exists, Dark Matter and Dark Energy are not a given.

Even If Time Exists, It Is Still The Case That Nothing Happens

Even if we assume my argument based on the Toy Universe experiment is flawed, and that time exists, it is still the case that nothing happens. Why? Because static time theory is true. In static time theory (B-Theory), nothing happens as there is no flow of time, but time still exists with regards to tenseless relations. With regards to static time, nothing happens by definition (everything is static and tenseless). Static time theory necessary follows if time is extended as the same way as space is. As Philosopher William Lane Craig points out:

"Minkowski’s interpretation is tenseless just because it is described in terms of a 4-dimensional geometrical object called spacetime. All points in spacetime exist. Things are extended in time just as they are in space. Hence, there is no temporal becoming." - William Lane Craig [2]

So, if there is a four-dimensional object called "space-time", then there is no temporal becoming (or flow of time). This is because time would be extended just like space. Nothing would "happen" in this scenario, things would just exist tenselessly.

Is this view the correct view? Yes. NASA confirmed in 2011 that the four-dimensional object known as space-time exists [3]. This is because Einstein's spacetime vortex was discovered. Here is a diagram (see? I can post pictures too):

GP-B (twist, 550px)

So, if we assume time exists, time is woven into space. This means that time is extended just like space, but there is not temporal becoming with regards to space. Therefore, tenseless/ static time theory is correct, and nothing happens with regards to the universe even if we assume time exists.

Conclusion

The idea of things happening, or events occurring, is 100% predicated on the ontological existence of temporal becoming. The burden of proof in this debate is shared, and Pro hasn't provided a single shred of evidence that time is real and isn't an illusion. I have provided multiple experiments showing that the idea of temporal becoming is misconceived, and that nothing actually happens with regards to the universe. Therefore, The Big Bang did not happen. The resolution has been established.


Sources

[1] http://arxiv.org...
[2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
[3] http://science.nasa.gov...

Debate Round No. 3
Cat_Lover

Pro

If the Big Bang did not happen, you will have to provide a secular-scientific beginning of the universe based on evidence, not belief, without that, you will have argued against something without your own reasoning/beginning of the universe, without these, you will have just debated me without a huge piece of evidence, one piece that you will need to win this debate, or at least get points and I getting the argument points.

Arguments passed on to con, after he makes his round 4 argument, I will refute it in round five, then he refute me.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

My opponent begs the question. He states that I have to provide an explanation for the beginning of the universe, as if it came into being. However, that presupposes temporal becoming, which I argued against and got no response to. Also, all I have to do to win this debate is argue sufficiently that The Big Bang did not happen, I don't have to replace that with something different. So, the notion that I have to replace the idea that "The Big Bang happened" with a different explanation is flawed.

Regardless I believe in The Big Bang theory at its most fundamental level, I just don't believe it "happened". Every state of affairs that we would say existed at what we call a "moment" in the past after The Big Bang, that we would say exists "now" and will exist in the "future" exist as a timeless collection. No events actually occur, change is just an illusion.

My opponent didn't respond to any of my arguments from the last round. Therefore, they stand. I argued that time doesn't exist and is an illusion, and that this entails nothing has ever happened, happens, or will happen. Change is an illusion. Thus, The Big Bang couldn't have really happened.

The resolution has been negated.
Debate Round No. 4
Cat_Lover

Pro

You logic is flawed, you say time doesn't exist, yet we age, plants grow, things get bigger or smaller, time, weather existing or not, does not disprove the Big Bang, if time doesn't exist, then this whole debate took no time to happen, yet we humans still see the effects, when you say time doesn't exist, you contradict yourself, due to the fact that if it didn't or doesn't exist we do not have birth? Time is us, we have usually around 85 years to live out our lives, but if time doesn't exist, we are already dead, thus this debate is a waste of time, but wait, time doesn't exist, so it can't be a waste, but it is a waste of time, but time doesn't exist.

VOTE PRO.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

My opponent's logic is flawed, because his logic begs the question (which is fallacious). He says if time doesn't exist, then things couldn't get smaller, larger, debates cannot "happen', and the birth process couldn't occur. I agree with all of that. The problem with my opponent is that due to time being an illusion, that things getting smaller and larger and bigger are also illusions, things happening are illusions, and all processes are illusions. Ontologically, each step of this debate exists as a timeless collection. Therefore, the debate didn't "happen", but it is still very real. My birth didn't "happen", yet, it is very real. If time doesn't exist, then our births are just as real as our death, however, we still only experience a finite time interval. So, is this debate a waste of time? No, because time doesn't exist. There is no time to waste ontologically, we only experience the illusion of time.

Basically, my opponent is taking things which I already proved were illusions (things that require time, like aging), and saying that because those things are real, time must exist. However, those things are not real, specifically for the very reason that time doesn't exist.

The Wheeler-DeWitt equation describing the universe lacks a time unit, and this equation is the basis for most Quantum Gravity Models. The Toy Universe experiment I provided that our experience of time comes from the nature of quantum entanglement, and confirms the Wheeler-DeWitt equation's prediction of a timeless universe. I also provided an argument that because of the 4d spacetime fabric, that if we assume time exists, it must be tenseless time. With tenseless time, there is no temporal becoming, and nothing happens.

In conclusion

I argued that because reality lacks temporal becoming, nothing could have happened, nothing happens, and nothing will happen. Things "happening" are illusory. However, since this is the case, then The Big Bang couldn't have happened (since that would be something that happened). Ergo, the resolution is false.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Jonbonbon
Inb4 post-voting period. This was actually pretty fun to read.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Thank you. It just seems to me that nothing can "happen" unless there is temporal becoming. So, if I show that there is no temporal becoming, then The Big Bang "happening" is false by default.
Posted by Smithereens 2 years ago
Smithereens
I find it Interesting how you used an argument against temporal becoming to build your case against the BB theory. Never seen it done before. well done.
Posted by Adaptable 2 years ago
Adaptable
My goodness! Con slaughtered Pro! I better get practicing my debating skills to debate rational!
Posted by Cat_Lover 2 years ago
Cat_Lover
No, next time ill but no bullcrap arguments.
Posted by n7 2 years ago
n7
I think Pro has learned to put "No Semantics" in the debate rules.
Posted by Cat_Lover 2 years ago
Cat_Lover
I apologize on my round 3 argument, I didn't add the link, here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by Cat_Lover 2 years ago
Cat_Lover
My video "What caused the big bang" might upset a few Christians, but please understand this, I do not mean to offend anyone in any shape or form from this debate.
Posted by Cat_Lover 2 years ago
Cat_Lover
I cant wait to hear it! I'm actually 12 years old, but the site wouldn't let me put that age :P so I put 18. lol
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
I can't wait to do this debate! I have an argument that I bet my opponent won't see coming...
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Jonbonbon
Cat_LoverRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't actually respond to any points that con made other than to say "I don't understand." Not understanding something isn't a point of negation. It's just a statement that pro didn't know what con was arguing. Pro also tried to shift the BoP onto con toward the end of the debate, even though pro clearly has the BoP, and con provided an adequate argument to negate the resolution.
Vote Placed by HeartOfGod 2 years ago
HeartOfGod
Cat_LoverRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: How can anyone vote for Pro? he didn't engage any of Rt's arguments, so they remain standing. Con wins and he had sources.
Vote Placed by Thoughtispower 2 years ago
Thoughtispower
Cat_LoverRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: As Pro had stated, Cons arguments are flawed, and I felt more convinced by Pro.
Vote Placed by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
Cat_LoverRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Con's arguments were disappointing and flawed.
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 2 years ago
zmikecuber
Cat_LoverRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't really address COn's arguments, so arguments to Con. Also, Con used more reliable sources.
Vote Placed by chewster911 2 years ago
chewster911
Cat_LoverRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: I am very disappointed with Con and his arguments. He used the analogy: If time is an illusion,then nothing could have started or ended,therefore the big bang didn't happen and the universe isn't expanding. This logic is really flawed,as Pro stated. We describe things from our perspective,and from our perspective the time exists. Of course colors are just an illusion,but from our perspective they exist. This is how we perceive the reality. Con's arguments were really poor. Argument points to Pro,because he provided evidence for the Big bang. Of course,Con provided some sources relevant to his arguments,while Pro provided only a couple of videos and few pictures. Thus,i give the source points to Con. Everything else is tied.