The Instigator
firemonkey6775
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Robert_Lee_Hotchkiss
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

The origin of the universe being complete impossible to prove

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,082 times Debate No: 1464
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (7)

 

firemonkey6775

Pro

there is no hard evidence in any way shape or from what the origin of the universe is. Then i also mean that you must take the orgin of the universe on faith no matter what your faith is
a. Big bang
B. intellegent creation
C. its really all a dream
Robert_Lee_Hotchkiss

Con

In one sense of course you are right. All of our perceptions could be false. If by making this argument you are meaning that it is impossible to prove anything than yes are right. But as this wasn't the argument that you made I assume that you mean that we can't prove the origin of the universe to the same degree to as other things which we are certain enough of to use the word proved.

As a Buddhist I would argue that both the Big Bang and the it is all a dream argument are proved to a degree of certainty on par with any other concern of humanity. The evidence for the big bang is overwhelming. Everything in the Universe is moving away from a central point of origin. The data supporting this is massive and has only become more certain as we make further innovations in technology an mathematics.

Similarly Buddhism is one of the most scientific of religions. In its purest form you simply sit for long periods of time maintaining mindfulness by such methods of counting breaths and Chanting. The descriptions of enlightenment by Buddhist monks are incredibly consistent. There have been many disputes in Buddhism, but as far as I know none of these disputes have revolved around the nature of enlightenment.

Further investigations of blood flow in the brains of Buddhist brains show an incredible similarity. They all show a reduced blood flow to orientation area of the brain. This strongly suggests that it is possible to a reach a point where ones individuality is no longer confined to their physical body. Monks who achieve this state agree that the realization that reality is an illusion is the realist feeling experience they have ever experienced.

The evidence for intelligent design is less evident. A study of biology makes it clear that the animal species are neither set and unchanging nor to the evolve in a consistent direction of what an outside observer would call improvement.

There is a massive amount evidence that the species were not designed by a creator and remained that way to this day. Not only is the fossil evidence for evolution overwhelming, but DNA studies are much more compelling still.

The strongest evidence for a creator is that because no light comes from before the Big Bang. One could think hey something must have caused the big bang. But this assumes that lack of something is a more natural state than existence of something. However, there is no real evidence either way on this matter.

So we are as sure as we can be that the Big Bang actually occurred. If religion has taught us anything about the real world, then it is the truth of realization as experienced by Buddhist monks.

I submit that it has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the universe is an illusion and that part of that illusion is the Big Bang.
Debate Round No. 1
firemonkey6775

Pro

you still have not given me a single piece of hard evidence. Also the entire piece about the monks and how this is all unreal this would make me totally amazingly happy cause then i dont have to eat i dont have to pay the power bill and i can win this argument because i will it.

i would very much appreciate it if you could post a link to this fossil evidence of evolution because to my knowledge (as little and unsigneficant as it is) there is still no fossil evidence that has not been disproven.

The big bang is also still an insane idea because per the second law of thermo dynamics this would be insane that it can happen over and over again and that it would be possible for an organism to come from nothing. It is also impossible for an entire universe to come from nothing. so every thing you have said still is taken on faith.

Last i also have the point that if it was so darn obvious that the world came from the big bang why can't i see it as even a remote possibility. (or any of the other 1,000,000,000 christians on earth
Robert_Lee_Hotchkiss

Con

Firstly, let me explain the whole illusion thing. You don't have to eat but you might experience illusion of starvation, you don't have to pay the light bill but you might experience the illusion of darkness. You might will that you win the debate and might win it but it wouldn't be because you realized that it is an illusion. Realizing that the world is an illusion does not change the nature of the illusion. Everything may still appear to be as it always has been.

let me see if I can reach across the religious divide and bring us a little closer.

Firstly current thinking of the big bang is that is a one time thing which is consistent with the Christian view of time that it has a beginning and an end. It is true that for a while some believed that the big bang was a repeating thing that would more agree with religions such as that of Maya which imagine many cycles. So chalk one up for the Christians. It also is the classic example of the second rule of thermodynamics going from one singularity to finally fading away into mater and energy as dissipated as can be imagined.

Nothing about the big bang theory says anything about before the bang. For all we know the thing immediately previous to the big bang might have been God saying "Let there be light."

Let me give something for you to think about concerning the big bang and the age of the universe. The bible says things happened on the first day, second day, third day, ect. It didn't say earth day. Days can be anywhere from a few seconds to almost an infinite number of our years. And, notice please that on the first day God had not created the earth. So the earth day at that point could have been any amount of time he wanted it to be. Maybe the bible was speaking of heaven days. Since we know virtually nothing about heaven heaven days could theoretically be any length of time whatsoever.

I wouldn't have brought up the evolution thing if I had known you didn't believe in it. The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that any attempt to explain it a short space really gives you a false impression that evidence is less than it is.

There is the fossil evidence mind numbingly voluminous involving countless fossils of countless species. It is true that the number of hominid fossils are few and the exact evolution of man can't be mapped out using fossil evidence. But the evidence for evolution is based so many different kinds of evidence. There is incredible evidence from embryology and from DNA. The very same technology that you probably trust in court cases. The vast majority of this evidence from widely different types of sources consistent with each other. There are some inconsistencies here and there and some things that used be taught about evolution have turned out to be false.

But there is no silver bullet that kills the concept of evolution and believe me anyone who tells you that there is, is either mistaken or much more disturbingly lying.

Many people find no conflict between evolution and Christianity. Darwin himself did not. He lost his faith not because of his scientific theories but because of the tragic death of his daughter. The Catholic church does not oppose evolution.

I feel that the vast majority of Christians working their little plot of soil in Africa or South America never give a thought to evolution or the big bang. Neither speaks at all to the message of redemption in Christianity. I mean god could make very person out candy canes using unionized elf labour, what would the difference really be?
Debate Round No. 2
firemonkey6775

Pro

well first evolution may still be posable your right but life did not start from evolution and if it did that meanse we are rocks and dirt and i would rather not think like that. Second macro evolution has nothing nothing at all to do with creation because there could not be evolution in seven days on that scale other wise se would long be pass human. Her is the reason it is imposible for it to be more than seven days because plants were created on the 4th day and they didnt have water till the 5th day so they would have well died off if it had been years and years and there wasnt creatures to provide them with oxygen either. so there for evolution and creation have nothing to do with each other second creationist say the earth is 6-10 years old right let me tell you right. and you say the earth is 100,000,000 - 100,000,000,000,000 years old well in 1969 we sent man to the moon. (please agree with me on that) Ok the eagle (the actual part of the ship tha landed on the moon im sure you knew this but making sure) was designed to land in 100,000,000,000 years worth of moon dust wich would be roughly six feet but how much did it actualy land in aproximatly a 1/4 of an inch wich roughly 6-10 thousand years worth of moon dust, ok the oldest living thing on earth the great barrier reef i know its technically dead but its alive was estimated to be 4,400 years old which is when the flood of Noah happened. and if the earth was 100,000,000,000 years old the sun would have had to start burning past the orbit of earth which would make us worse than just a floating cinder. i dont have much else to say besides to tell you yet once again you can not prove in any way that the univers was for sure was made from the big bang.
Robert_Lee_Hotchkiss

Con

Robert_Lee_Hotchkiss forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Einstein 9 years ago
Einstein
One thing I wanted to point out was just a scientific thing - Robert said that the Universe is moving away from a central point of origin. This is not technically true - the Universe is expanding, but it is not as if it is expanding away from some central point.

Second, I think there's a valid point regarding the impossibility of proving what the origin of the universe is; however, the pro debater spent too much time rebutting the con instead of making his own case, in my opinion.
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
Sure. Just look it up. Google "cosmic microwave background radiation". You could also watch the History Channel's "The Universe" or take an intro astronomy class. I've learned about it from all of those sources.
Posted by firemonkey6775 9 years ago
firemonkey6775
mind job i would love to see this radiation source you speak of
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
Sorry to rain on your parade firemonkey, but there is hard evidence to suggest the big bang really did happen. In addition to the fact that the universe is expanding, and therefore must have been expanding from something, astronomers have already found what they consider to be the smoking gun of the big bang: ambient microwave radiation left over from the big bang that does not originate from any given source. While this is in no way proof, it is enough for astronomers themselves to have abandoned the preexisting idea of a steady-state universe...an idea that was even preferred by Einstein. You don't have to take the big bang on faith because of the evidence that backs it up. This evidence is what negates the idea that you have to take it on faith since faith operates either in the absence of evidence or in the face of it.
Posted by firemonkey6775 9 years ago
firemonkey6775
thats kinda why i chose it wanted to win my first debate
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 9 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Ridiculous - impossible to successfully argue against given current science. Appeal to religion is equally unsuccessful.

The only way to debate this is with hypothetical science of the future, or to accept an appeal to some sort of deity as the responsible party. I am inclined to do neither.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
firemonkey6775Robert_Lee_HotchkissTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeiture
Vote Placed by pmagyar 9 years ago
pmagyar
firemonkey6775Robert_Lee_HotchkissTied
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 
Vote Placed by Einstein 9 years ago
Einstein
firemonkey6775Robert_Lee_HotchkissTied
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 
Vote Placed by artC 9 years ago
artC
firemonkey6775Robert_Lee_HotchkissTied
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 
Vote Placed by Debater2008 9 years ago
Debater2008
firemonkey6775Robert_Lee_HotchkissTied
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 
Vote Placed by Robert_Lee_Hotchkiss 9 years ago
Robert_Lee_Hotchkiss
firemonkey6775Robert_Lee_HotchkissTied
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 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
firemonkey6775Robert_Lee_HotchkissTied
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